120°

Microtransactions, the ugly in the games industry?

Microtransactions are making their way into next-gen games, is this a bad thing for the industry?

Read Full Story >>
videogamesuncovered.com
IanVanCheese3746d ago

Meh, they aren't that bad. no one is forcing you to buy stuff so as long as it's not stupidly hard to earn stuff without them, I don't see why people are hating on them.

Other than spite because some rich kids can skip out on a bit of grind.

LOGICWINS3746d ago

"Other than spite because some rich kids can skip out on a bit of grind."

Right. I pity people who have this way of thinking. If you paid $60 for a game, you can consume that entertainment however the hell you want as long as it only affects YOUR experience. I'm against microtransactions if it gives you an edge in a competitive online game though.

ziggurcat3746d ago

"I'm against microtransactions if it gives you an edge in a competitive online game though."

so what's the difference when you get placed into matches with people who are at a higher MP level? are you against the current state of matchmaking as well?

LOGICWINS3746d ago

???

Well...if they have a higher MP level, then they spent more time with the game. Thats fair. They spent the money to get the game earlier, so naturally they should have more experience (and have a higher rank) than newbies.

Kryptix3746d ago

"so what's the difference when you get placed into matches with people who are at a higher MP level?"

You misunderstood...what he meant was that he's against certain microtransactions that give you a boost for a limited time that nobody else can get. Like a potion that costs $1 and gives you double damage for 5 matches or something similar. If they want to pay extra for a short cut to unlock everything then that's them...but they have a lot of money to waste.

ziggurcat3746d ago

@ kryptix:

no, his point was about micro transactions giving you access to unlockables earlier than if you were to progress naturally through the MP campaign. there hasn't been a single micro transaction that has given anyone anything that wasn't already available in the game, so you're wrong there.

@ logic:

there really isn't any fundamental difference between being placed in a match with someone who has spent the time to unlock the perk/ability/whatever, and being placed in a match with someone who stupidly wasted their money to unlock the same perk/ability/whatever earlier. the alleged unfair advantage provided via micro transaction you're alluding to simply doesn't exist when you're routinely being placed into matches with people who are further along the MP campaign. your point would only be valid if online matchmaking was set up in such a way where you were only placed into matches with people who are at the exact same experience level as you.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3746d ago
fattyuk3746d ago

You can thank Facebook and apple for micro transactions as that's where it all started.

Im not against micro transactions but at the same time I don't lke them,I really enjoyed playing the Simpsons tapped out, but Unfotuntly that's one example of where micro transactions really are over the top and thus I cant enjoy/play the game without forking huge amounts of money. which I refuse to do.

NYC_Gamer3746d ago (Edited 3746d ago )

Its bad because it gives people who pay for items the advantage in online gaming over those who choose not to open the check book

IanVanCheese3746d ago

If it gives an online advantage yeah it's bad, but how many games actually do that? Give a competitive advantage for money?

kyon1473746d ago

I find that most decent games with micro transactions are normally just a time saver rather than giving someone an edge over someone who doesn't pay.

Take MMOs most decent ones will have in game cash shops for vanity items, exp boosts, character bag space etc. Some items can give a little help like companions in Neverwinter which can be bought for money give stat increases but these are also sold on the auction house for in game money and the stats they give won't give much of an edge.

Take mobile games like Candy Crush they are all focused on making their games easier for people or quicker. Pay to get items to help you with a level or pay to play that level again with out losing. All these dont really give an "edge" more than make it quicker for one person to get passed that level.

There have been some games ofcourse which has given better benefits to paying players and those games normally do not do well for long.

Free to play games have given birth to mirco transactions - if you want the game free/cheaper/no subs you need to expect this but as a developer needs to make money somehow and just like in real life people will pay for items they want to possess be it speed boosts, or vanity items. It is just down to the developers to do it without effecting the overall game balance but giving the paying customer something for them too see worthwhile for buy it.

Volkama3746d ago

It's bad because it gives you the 'opportunity' to spend money for instant gratification. It blows reward structures that are key to meta games right out of the window by offering that choice.

"Awesome, 10 races and I can win my favouritecar! Crack on!". Much racing fun ensues.

Becomes

"Hmm I can have the car right now... hmmm...". 10 races are still an option, but you know you're being inefficient.

That kind of scenario is even worse in RPGs or MMORPGs with linear progression models, where you can do x repetitive action and progress but if you buy a potion it'll take half the time. Just having the option there takes the fun out of the activity imo.

Now I know your argument. You are going to say "you don't have to use the micro-transactions!". And you are living proof, 'cos you never use them. So tell me, what's the benefit to you?

In some people's opinion MTs ruin games. To others they have no impact. So what's the benefit? Why do we want micro-transactions even though they annoy so many people?

I have never seen anyone wade into a topic like this saying "whoa don't take micro-transactions out, I prefer to pay my way through games!" so why bother defending their inclusion?

adorie3746d ago

To answer that title:

THE UGLY in the games industry.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3746d ago
from the beach3746d ago (Edited 3746d ago )

Much like with arcade games, if you put in extra money you can buy your way to 'success' but it is only to your own detriment, the fun of winning is lost.

LOGICWINS3746d ago

Thats your opinion. Whats "fun" for YOU can be considered a chore by someone else. For example, in racing games, not everyone wants to have to race crappy cars for the first 10-20 hours before unlocking the super cars.

By paying X sum of money, they can get to the part of the game that is FUN for them without having to play boring sections.

from the beach3746d ago (Edited 3746d ago )

Yep, and that's why I'm not opposed to these in-game purchases, because I recognise that there are indeed people who want to play this way, just as there are arcade credit feeders. It's a bit late in the day now to start kicking up about it, the ship has long since sailed.

AaronMK3746d ago

A good game will be fun throughout the experience. That includes having the right balance of challenge, reward, and a satisfying rate of progression. It will have difficulty settings to make it a fun experience for a wide range of skill levels.

It should only take the initial purchase of the game (and maybe some time to learn the play mechanics) to get to the FUN part.

Kevin263853746d ago (Edited 3746d ago )

The ugly in the industry is not sourcing. Can you see my gamertag in the bottom right hand corner of the image? That is because this website lifted it off of my YouTube channel.

zero_gamer3746d ago

In F2P gaming, it is a fair business move, but if I start seeing stuff like "Refill ammo - $0.10" on my new 60 dollar shooter, even if I still have an option to hunt dead bodies for more, I really question the purpose of this game or why it even exists. Is EA really trying to sell me an actual video game, or are they trying to sell me some platform for services?

N311V3746d ago

Does that actually happen or were you just making up an example?

danowat3746d ago

If idiots didn't pay for them, they wouldn't be there.

It's only going to get worse as people get lazier, they don't want to "work" (i.e. play the game), so they'll just pony up and pay the developers to play the game for them.

They are here to stay, all you can do is vote with your wallet and not pay for them.

Debaitable3746d ago

Some of us don't have the time to grind on a game. Being a gamer when you're an adult is different than being a gamer as kid/teenager.

Volkama3745d ago

Could it be? Are you the mythical gamer that likes spending money on micro transactions?

I.. I feel like I've just found a real unicorn. I've never seen anyone stand up and say they like spending on micro transactions before.

Would you not be happier if developers catered for people on a tight schedule by offering alternative game modes or ways to play, rather than making you pay more than everyone else?

Volkama3746d ago

Not just here to stay. They will keep on refining them and refining games around them, until you also find yourself splashing the cash. That's the dream. Maximise that revenue stream. Why settle for $60?

AaronMK3745d ago

No, I won't just find myself "splashing the cash". I just won't buy/play those games that are built around microtrancactions.

Show all comments (29)
70°

Exclusive Monster Hunter 20th Anniversary Event with Themed Stays

Toyohashi, Japan is set to host a large-scale Monster Hunter event to celebrate the franchise's 20th anniversary, complete with themed hotel accommodations.

Read Full Story >>
retronews.com
70°

What the game industry must do to prevent occupational burnout

Game industry working conditions are improving, but occupational burnout still runs amok. Studios and workers have the power to slow it down.

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
anast1d 21h ago (Edited 1d 21h ago )

Quite being abusive to the workers and hold management accountable.

370°

Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth Has Reportedly Sold About Half of What FF7 Remake Did in the Same Timeframe

The acclaimed open world action RPG is "underperforming" where its sales are concerned, according to industry analyst Daniel Ahmad.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
raWfodog3d ago

“Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth Has Reportedly Sold About Half of What FF7 Remake Did in the Same Timeframe”

Makes sense to me since the current PS5 base is about half of what the PS4 base was when FFVII Remake released.

There were about 113 million PS4’s in consumers hands worldwide in 2020 when FFVII Remake was released (towards the beginning of COVID lockdown no less).

PS5 sales currently sits at about half of that (50-something million. We are not in COVID lockdown so many people are not as bored as they were 4 years ago and not in a rush to buy every video game coming out at release. Some PS4 owners may not have upgraded to PS5 yet and therefore can’t buy the sequel yet. And, of course, some who played Remake just might not be interested in Rebirth.

It just seems pretty disingenuous for an analyst to ‘analyze’ a situation when there are so many mitigating and unequal factors involved.

OtterX2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Yes, this and also finishing part 1 of the Final Fantasy Remake trilogy weighs heavily on it too. There's always a huge percentage of gamers who never finish the games they purchase. It's not always due to lack of enjoyment, but also life priorities etc. But factor that into the knowledge that Rebirth is a straight continuation of the story, and enjoyment lies heavily on having finished the first, you can begin to understand why not as many players jumped in. But absolutely too, the lesser install base of the PS5 played a huge role!

jjb19812d ago

I started the game when it came out, played about 2/3 of the way through and finished the rest in the last month before rebirth came out. There are just too many games and too much adulting to do.

Eonjay1d 13h ago

It sold about half... with about half as many PS5s available as PS4 had when it launched in 2020. So... the tie ratio is about the same. As PS5s continue to sale it should eventually match Remake. It's a really good game.

fr0sty1d 12h ago

I think there's going to be another wave of buyers that purchase the game once the third part of the trilogy is released, especially if they release it as a bundle.

jambola2d ago

Excuse me sir
Industry analyst Daniel Ahmad said this 🙄

Obscure_Observer2d ago

"Industry analyst Daniel Ahmad said this 🙄"

That guy is director of research & insights at Niko Partners.

https://nikopartners.com/

But he shouldn´t be trusted according to some "trust me bro" N4G random. Smh

2d ago
Barlos2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Obscure Observer, so by your logic, we should also trust Pachter? Come on, it's like you're not even trying any more.

MrNinosan1d 17h ago

@Obscure
"We cover China, Chinese Taipei, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam."

Yepp, very trusted and the biggest areas for videogame sales.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 17h ago
Tody_ZA2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@raWfodog You'd think an analyst would catch these facts, but just goes to show what gaming analysts are made of. We've only in the last year moved to PS5 only games, in addition to the install base cross-gen has been around for years. There are a lot of PS4 players still over there. It's amazing when people compare things whilst isolating all the significant facts.

And Rebirth being a direct sequel is also valid: anecdotally, I've just started FF7 Remake a week ago and I'm loving it, on Chapter 8, but I'm obviously not going to buy Rebirth until I complete the story which will take time.

Ironmike1d 14h ago

But it's hasn't sold as much the articles om Google stating bit so what if it hasn't the game is still great better than remake which tailed of in middle-of-the- game

TheEroica1d 19h ago (Edited 1d 19h ago )

Apologists always know what to say... 👍
Is it possible to squeeze in one more excuses for FF7 sales? Go for it!

Tody_ZA1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

@TheEroica Understand the meaning of the words you use or don't use them. An apologist argues in defense of something controversial or problematic. Pointing out relevant facts that an analysis or article did not take into account is constructive feedback and discussion. There are great movies, games and other forms of art that don't sell as expected, but later gain financial success.

Example? The Godfather Part 2 underperformed financially compared to its predecessor but is widely hailed as one of the greatest films and sequels of all time and is still influential to this day. And no, I'm not comparing Final Fantasy 7 to the Godfather, before you draw that strawman. There is one loose similarity however in that Rebirth is also overwhelmingly acclaimed and considered superior to the first.

Given the decision to split Final Fantasy VII into three separate games, of which Rebirth released exclusively for PS5 leaving the PS4 install base behind, and the final installment due in 2027, the sales performance is a bit more of a conversation than you're trying to make it out to be.

Crows901d 17h ago

Didn't even mention price increases across the board for all games...this causes all people to be more picky and limit game purchases

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1d 12h ago
GoodGuy093d ago

Unfortunate but it's the reality of sequels. And I simply just don't hear much people talk about rebirth and even remake as these titles just seem too hard to get into with many newcomers and old fans that are upset with the many changes.

Eonjay1d 13h ago

The games are really good and both acclaimed and Rebirth is even better than Remake with a 90+ metascore but if you don't want to 'hear' the praise... you probably wont.

TheProfessional1d 13h ago (Edited 1d 13h ago )

It's kind of ridiculous how some people here are just making stuff up to explain the low sales. Just because you bought the game and you like it doesn't mean it sold better than it did. Same with FFXVI.

rpvenom1d 4h ago

For me its cause now that i know it releases on pc.. id rather play it with mods on my pc than my ps5

Battlestar232d ago ShowReplies(8)
gold_drake2d ago

well, according to some other reports, it had 2.1 mio. players in the first week.

so, who to believe now.

ZeekQuattro2d ago

It's safe to say if it sold that Square would of made a sales milestone announcement like they did with past FF entries or other IPs in general. They did a FF16 sales update within 2 weeks after it launched for instance.

gold_drake2d ago

there is no way this game hasnt already sold more than remake.

there doesnt need to be an announcement for everything, especially not if they released several updates amd the ultimania.

people are too obsessed with sales

CrimsonWing692d ago

I think there’s a reason we haven’t seen a celebratory tweet from Square on the sales. It came out on Feb. 29th and it’s Apr. 13th right now… that ain’t a good sign. I think this one can reach 3 mill at some point but will be behind Remake, which when it comes to business, that ain’t good.

Show all comments (79)