About Micro transactions

[DamianCastaway]

So I know this has become quite a problem with most games recently as they've been making their games pay-to-win via micro transactions. For those who are not familiar with micro transactions, they are in-game stores where the user pays real money to get in-game assets.


Games like Maplestory (Or any nexon game really), and A LOT of mobile games are guilty of this, as you can just buy stat boosts and 2X EXP that aren't available to players by normal means.


Personally, I think micro transactions should be for cosmetic items or for boosts that can ALSO be obtained in game (EX: 2X Exp coupons can be bought for a large sum of in-game currency or can be a very rare boss drop).


I dunno, I hate the idea that only the rich can be good at games now adays while the poor REALLY have to struggle to remain even relevant in-game.


What are your thoughts and opinions on micro transactions and how do you think they can be improved?

 

[Atlas Rose]

For a while I played the game Guild Wars and I think it pulled off micro transactions pretty well. You could buy armor/weapon skins that were purely for aesthetics, or more character slots. Guild Wars 2 is pushing its limits though, as you can buy things for money or a cubic ton of ingame coins, but things like miniatures (little pets that do nothing but look cool) are in mystery boxes. Inside the box can be one of any six minis with varying rarity, but the drawback is that they are untradable. If you get a mini you already have, you can't sell/give it to another player. It just sits in your inventory taking up space or you delete it. Players end up wasting a ton of money if they want to have the full set as they usually get multiples of the common minis while going for a rare one. 

 

[Andar]

What a lot of people are forgetting is that nothing is for free - if some people play for free, then others need to pay more for the servers to run and the programmers to get food on their tables. And no matter how you look at it, cosmetic changes are not enough for most people to put up their money - they are more willing to spend money if it gets them better winning changes.


And the companies creating those games have three different options only and have to see which one gets them the money to pay for everything:


1) having each player pay a little bit for equal chances - no free to play and everyone has the same chances of winning, but that will loose them the number of players that don't want to pay for anything. This is a subscription type payment and was the norm for online play one or two decades ago.


2) Pay for non-winning advantages only - as said above only some of the players will pay for cosmetics or side chances, so there is the question of how much they will get from those micropayments


3) Pay to win - allow most people to play for free but make it so that you have to pay in order to get to top ranking.


There are no other ways, because no one gets servers for free.


And yes, the pay to win games are often made in a way that you have to pay a lot in order to get to the winning places, because every paying player has to pay the cost of one or two dozen free players.


If you don't like it, then you have to accept that you have to look for subscription based games where everyone has to pay for equal chances instead of p2w games where the winners pay ten times as much for playing and winning because they have to pay for the free players as well.

 

[Tsukihime]

Personally, I would rather see people go out and try to make money, rather than seeing them spend all their time trying to obtain virtual currency or goods.


I'd like to see micro-transactions used as a way to provide such incentive.

 

[DamianCastaway]

The only real thing about micro transactions I'm against is when they're put into a pay-to-play game that already you have to pay for essential things like the game itself, expansions and DLCs. I realize devs need to make money, but putting micro transactions on top of already expensive expansions and the etc, really give you a different feeling about the game. Think about when Blizzard brought micro transactions to Diablo for example. Then again, if you could afford those expansions in the first place, some $1-$7 purchases should be nothing to the consumer. Perhaps I have a more hyper-critical mentality about the subject.

 

[Tsukihime]

So how can micro-transactions be improved?


That largely depends on what your focus is.


If you're trying to find ways to improve the overall ecosystem in games operated by other companies, which sounds like where the topic is heading, then you likely don't have much options there since players probably have very little influence over the decisions of the company.


There is a joke that goes like this: you, the consumer, are the product.


Businesses will do whatever they can to make money. Some of them may be required to prioritize profit motive over all else.


They will dangle carrots in front of you, and if you take it, then you're basically encouraging them to do it.


If it makes money, why stop?


That's pretty simple: if players don't like it, they will abandon the game.


If everyone abandons the game, then it may become unprofitable to continue operations and they will shut down the game.


You might have top 1% of players spending thousands a month on the game, but even they will probably get bored in an empty server.


Basic demand and supply, right? 


There are 3 immediately obvious solutions


1. The game company can choose not to offer them


2. The players can choose not to buy them


3. External forces such as industry regulators may pass legislation that forbids companies from offering micro-transactions, or certain types of micro-transactions


Just like how predatory gambling methods have been legally banned in Japan, if you can convince law makers that some form of regulation is required to keep the gaming industry healthy, then it might just happen


On the other hand, if you are interested in how to implement micro-transactions in games that do not already do it, or perhaps even in your own games...

 

[AwesomeCool]

I hate micro-transaction no matter how fair they are (I know about costs and such).


Makes me feel like I will never have the complete experience unless I pay more and makes the game feel incomplete.  I will think this subconsciously even if I know the micro-transactions are fair and do not hinder the experience (although I am finding this rare, even in the pay2play game category).


I am not the only one that feels this way either. I find that a really big stigma is forming around micro-transactions (if it already cannot be considered) and even mentioning the word will make gamers think less of the game...


....permanently. 

 

[NeoFantasy]

I have no problem with micro-transactions in mobile free-to-play games or just games that are free in general but when they are put into a game that you have already payed full price for that's a different story. Games like Halo 5 have no right to have micro-transactions as they are full price games made by a triple-a studio that has money coming out of it's ass. The Elder Scrolls online is a good example of a game that was ruined by micro-transactions (among other things) it's still a good game but it was soured by micro-transactions A decent horse in the game will cost you about 40k, how much money do you get for killing that super hard boss...3 gold, they have since fixed this but it is still sickening to see them try and take advantage of consumers like that. When I play a good free game and see the developers care about their game and it's fanbase I don't mind giving them some extra cash but when the game costs me 80$ and they're telling me I can only buy this item with real money that's when I draw the line.

 

[terrorchan]

Games that are free I'm fine with them. HOWEVER If I shell out 60$ for a game I don't want to spend another 60$ on content that should've come with the game in the first place. For extra outfits, that's fine. But for a chunk of the game to be taken out, it's ridiculous. 

 

[Shaz]

That's pretty much it. 


If a game is advertised as 'free' then you should be able to win it without having to pay anything, even if it means it takes you longer to win it.  Payment should not be required for mandatory items.


If you pay for a game, then you shouldn't be required to make any further payments in order to win it.  I would even think it's low to require further payments for ANY other content.


You either pay upfront and get the whole game, or you get the game for free, with the option (not requirement) of payments to complete it.

 

[Luck Of Kurisu Saimon Des]

micro transactions  are a developers dream


To keep loyal customers its like buying an iPhone. ....


Stay safe

 

[Tsukihime]

There is a notion that because you've paid for a product, you are entitled to all content that comes with it, and all content that will come with it in the future.


I don't agree with that.


It's like saying paid DLC's are unethical because, I've already paid for the product, so why should I pay for "additional" content?


People might as well start complaining about RPG Maker selling separately DLC packs when you already paid $80 for the program.


disclaimer: I only play games on kongregate (which are free) and pay for premium content, so the amount of money I spend on games is probably not enough for me to understand what someone that spends $1000 on single video game goes through.

 

[stupid enough to like FF13]

I have all of the characters and almost all of the weapons in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. And not only did I not have to pay a single cent to get there, I didn't have to pay a single cent for the DLCs that added huge amounts of content to multiplayer because of the people who did pay for multiplayer currency.


In short, I have absolutely no problem with games giving players the option to spend more money for stuff as long as it's entirely an option.

 

[EternalShadow]

I'm against the microtransaction side of things, unless it's a single-player game. Fallout Shelter offers a pretty good experience on its own but if you wish to speed up the gameplay, you can buy Mr Handys and basically "card" packs which give you a random assortment of weapons, armour and rare stuff. They're quite cheap at about 60p per Mr Handy/pack so it isn't like you're being ripped off either. This eliminates the "pay to win" mentality/problem, and allows an individual to have their own experience and support the studio.

 

[AwesomeCool]

@Tsukihime   Not all DLC are equal.  People start to complain about DLC when people start feeling that it should of been in the game in the first place.  


One of the most common example of this is "on-disk" DLC or aka paying for content that is already included in the game files.  No matter the reason it is there, it makes customers feel like they have to pay more to access what they already bought and is one of the most common types of microtransactions (costumes and such are usually already in the game data itself and you have pay for it instead of unlock it through gameplay these days).


Compare The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.


Oblivion's DLC was hated and complained about constantly.


Skyrim had very few people and even approaching zero people against the DLC for that game.


Also, I have not even seen someone against DLC or microtransactions make that argument (I have seen people take there arguments out of context in this way though).  Perhaps the person who is feeling "entitled" thinks the game itself is barren of content compared to other games out there and feels content was cut to be sold later to milk them?


Star Wars: Battlefront is a big example of this.  It has no single-player campaign and yet has less guns, maps, customization then all the FPS competitors that came out that year (and most of those games had a single-player mode).   It also came out of the gate with a complete edition for 120 US dollars, and a special edition for 80 US dollars. If you add up all the dlc maps + base game maps, then you still get less maps then Call of Duty 4.  This doesn't account for the fact that some maps are just cut off sections of the bigger maps and each gameplay mode only has access to 1/4 of the total map selection (and only two modes are considered active and they share the same map pool).Despite all this, people are constantly called "entitled" for speaking out against this.  


Finally, if a person who is against this is "entitled", is this bad by itself?  Is wanting more from a product bad?  Is wanting a company to improve and create better products a bad thing?  We all want the best product for our money and to give companies the message that the current product is good enough will imply that they do not need to improve anything.


And why should they care to improve the game or future games?  It takes more work, money and time to do so and if people are fine with what they have already get then why bother?  


Do gamers even desire anything to be better anymore?  Heck, game publishers do not even have to defend there own decisions anymore, there fans will do it for them.

 

[stupid enough to like FF13]

Despite all this, people are constantly called "entitled" for speaking out against this.

"Entitlement" is the difference between "I don't like [x]...so I'm going to play [y]" and "I don't like [x]...so therefore it's objectively bad and they should do what I tell them to do".

 

[AceOfAces_Mod]

I only purchase DLC for games that I enjoy. If your game is bad, I won't buy it's DLC.


About the microtransactions, make sure that it doesn't break the balance. I don't like paying for a weapon because I must catch up with the others who pay a lot of money, who they deal way too much damage.

 

[Tsukihime]

@AwesomeCool


Usually, if a business offers shoddy products/services, consumers will simply choose not to hand them their money, and businesses will either pack up or find ways to stay afloat.


I just don't understand how a consumer can say "what a terrible deal I'm getting" and then proceed to hand over their money. And then complain about how the business is doing things. This is what you say when the tax man comes knocking on the door, not when you're deciding whether to buy a pizza from Mom and Pop shop or Pizza Hut.


Actually, I guess I might: consumers have no other choice. If they want to play the game, they have to buy it, even if they aren't entirely happy with it. And then they will wish for reforms in the system, but can't do much about it so they hope enough people will band together and then something will happen. After all, even if one consumer chooses not to pay for it, a million others will, so their decisions don't amount to anything significant.


In this case, it seems like an excellent opportunity for someone to take all of these suggestions that consumers have, and implement them in their own game.


If it is attractive enough, consumers will drop the bad companies and go with this good company. And then perhaps the other companies will be forced to change their strategies (which may include legal threats and other unsportsmanlike behavior)


I can understand gamers wanting better, but it just isn't convincing when they continue to contribute to what they perceive to be the problem.

 

[ashikai]

Honestly micro transactions are a great way to ensure that the games you like get continued support/sequels/etc. Especially with cult hits, if you pay only once, and it's a cult hit with a small market, there's unlikely to be another game in that series because the sales were low. However, if you add to that DLC or microtransactions, you could easily gain a lot of revenue despite the small audience, ensuring the series continues and you get the games you really like. It also allows for content that was PLANNED for release but didn't make the release date to actually get released! 


Free to play is a weird way to categorize a game, IMO. I mean, there are games that force you to pay after a level or two or you can't progress at all (I look at these as free demos, pay to play, unless they do this every level/chapter), games where you can just buy cosmetic stuff (bonus material, not needed to advance), or games where you pay to advance FASTER (but if you have patience you could amass all the same materials for free). I see all of these as very different, and honestly it's hard to hate any method just based on the model. To me, the important thing is how the payment model inhibits or enhances gameplay (and I think it's really horrible to think of these payment models in terms of shovelware games.) 


As for the consumer's wallet, I think micro transactions are actually better because you have (some)control over what you pay or don't pay for your game experience. It lowers the barrier to entry quite a bit and these days I find myself buying more games and paying way less per year for those games, and it's not just because of the reduced prices. It's because I can pay a small amount to try a game, and if I don't like it, I'm not out that much money (if any). Before microtransactions, buying a game was more of a gamble and you'd have to shell out a minimum of $35-$60 just to try the game and you wouldn't be getting that back if you didn't like it. I play a much wider variety of games now cuz of this.


//ramble

 

[EternalShadow]

@AwesomeCool Just going to throw in that Oblivion's SMALL dlc was "hated" - Mehrunes Razor and Shivering Isles were both loved. Vile Lair, Frostcrag Spire etc were neutral, as they were cool places.