NowGamer: Microtransactions in games are a ‘necessary evil’ according to analyst Michael Pachter who says he ‘doesn’t understand the angst’ about them.
Bend over and spread them cheeks, here comes the gaming industry to fuck you over.
It wouldn't be the 1st time the gaming industry have tried it.
Haha pretty much. You can bet microtransactions wouldn't be a "necessary evil" if people stopped buying the games containing them. We would soon see them dropped and we would go back to buying full games and no BS.
Yeah... makes me miss the good old snes to PS2 days.... I'm probably one of the few people who have never bought any DLC for any game no matter how much I liked it... Okay, I remember one time and that was for karaoke revolution encore, but that was because of My GF, she wanted new songs to sing lol!
Imagine you have microtransactions in every game, would this mean you would stop buying and playing games? I don't think so, stop laying yourself.
The micro transaction concept the gaming industry is implementing is not a big FK like the FK GameStop is giving the gaming industry with second hand sales & people who think 20 bucks return on a week old games is great deal or those that think 5 dollar off is a huge saving.
And somehow every other industry in the world with a 2nd hand market (which is basically every industry) survive just fine.
@Freeball the reason the rest industry is not harping on the subject is cause they have something in place . Take for instance the Automobile industry they have this in place to helps them plus the dealership that sales used cars . Now if the publisher , developers & second hand retail store worked together like this we would not be hearing anything about used games sale being an issue. http://www.nytimes.com/1994...
Since when have they become necessary? Prior to this gen microtransactions where non existent on consoles. Items that used to be secrets/unlockables now have a price tag attached to it. There is no justifying this in a moral sense.
I don't see how it's a necessary evil.
Costs are rising so high that there are only a few options: 1. Lose money instead of making it 2. Use microtransactions 3. Raise game prices to $70+ 4. Have a lesser focus on acting, graphics, and multiplayer social features in order to bring down the needed budget, and hope that gamers will be understanding and not care about visual prowess over a game's true core: the gameplay and fun. Seeing as how 1, 3, and 4 will never happen, 2 is the only way.
Or they could make the games initial price cheaper tempting more people to buy it brand new :)
They're such a necessary evil that the games industry has managed to survive until now without them.
And development costs have gone up 10 fold whilst game prices and sales have remained the same. Suddenly there's a problem with your argument.
While greed amongst publishers has gone up 20 fold.
You call it greed, I call it a way to keep games at their current price point. Things like microtransactions and DLC are the reason games don't already cost $80,- at retail.
Its a thin end of a wedge.
I love Pachter, he's always right. ALWAYS.
You forgot a sarcasm tag.
It wouldn't be necessary if they actually tried to adapt to the changing industry instead of nickel and diming us in an attempt to stay relevant. It's just unacceptable the sheer amount of content that gets held bacj purely to be resold in the form of DLC, if micro transaction are a nesecary evil then they need to benefit more than just the publishers.
i dont mind microtransactions as long as they dont "pop up" or offer you something you normally cant get without grinding.
Dust 514 has micro transactions, as well as other games like Uc3 riddled all in them, but i don't pay them no mind.
But i agree in regards to some DLC practices and micro transactions some companies do hold things back to seller at a later date and make more money. Its just plain disgusting!!!! I never buy COD dlc, Street fighter DLC and a ton of other things i dont buy because i dont feed into it. I glady and happily bought Dark souls DlC because the game was already full of content to begin with and the DLC didnt seem held back and was well worth it.
Dust is a free to play game so it makes sense. On the other hand, there is SFxT. This game had a price tag on extra colours for character clothes. Never could have imagine something like this could happen. Of course the ones who always take the first step forward in terms of greed is Capcom.
-rolls eyes- Yeah call out Capcom, since they're the only ones who ever do wrong. While I am not 100% sure about Blazblue CT (I think it did...), I know for a fact Blazblue CS (released in 2010) charged you for additional colors, different announcers and had micro transactions. Most later versions of Blazblue also featured this, plus Persona 4 the Arena. Arcana Hearts 3 had alternate color dlc. I think KoF also did it before Capcom did it.
I understand your point that as a publisher Capcom wasn't the first to charge for colours. But you only make comparisons of a Publisher to various games, who are the publishers for each of the game you mentioned?
Arc System Works did... Blazblue Arcana Hearts Persona 4 The Arena I find it odd that the same developer does multiple titles and they all have the same nickel / dime DLC, yet Capcom is worse because they're Capcom... it's okay to hate a company (as you clearly hate Capcom), but hating 1 company doesn't fix things, it just makes you look like a tool.
I don't hate Capcom, I always enjoy their games (excluding RE6). I dislike their DLC practices. Hate makes you blind, there is a difference between hate and dislike. You assume I hate the company as a whole because I believed their colour DLC was the first step of its kind. Yet I had no prior knowledge of Arc System Works DLC. Even if they provide a lame set of DLC it doesn't mean their games are not fun. Which Company's method in terms of colour DLC is worse? In this case ASW, according to your information. Because it is a common practice, whereas (as far as I know) Capcom provided this type of DLC for the first time in SFxT. You could go deeper into the reasoning for why they create this type of DLC, but then you'd have to have background information on the development for each game. Also looking at the decisions made for each particular game by both developers and publish would be fruitful.
I said you hate Capcom, since you list 2 examples (this one is SF X T and later on Asura's Wrath) that both happen to be against Capcom. Even when you replied to my examples, you still explained why you thought Capcom was worse. So forgive me if I assume you hate a company because you don't mention anyone else for wrong doing. With this being said, Capcom pulled this with Street Fighter III The Third Strike before Street Fighter X Tekken came out and plenty of people called them out for it. However we can spend all day talking about who's right and who's wrong, but my point is to actually LOOK into these things and don't attack the largest company because they're the largest. Too many people blame Capcom first and give everyone else a pass, which is WHY they attempted it in the first place. Arc System Works was charging for pallets for years, yet it's only a problem when Street Fighter does it. Blazblue for the 3DS is quite honestly the worst 3DS / DS port I've heard of, yet people pretty much accepted it. Super Monkey Ball had locked saves before RE the Mercs, yet only RE the Mercs got public attention. People complain about Capcom doing GOTY editions, yet plenty of other companies do the same thing and people have no issues supporting their practices. (Fallout, Batman, Borderlands, etc) Virtually everyone mocks Capcom for the Street Fighter ___ blah blah edition, yet ARC did just as many with Guilty Gear / Blazblue and no one complains. Capcom does on disc DLC, yet several other games have been busted for that too. etc I am not saying Capcom is a righteous company (esp after the DLC characters for SF X T...), but I am saying that other companies do wrong and they NEED to be called out for it. You can make as many stands against Capcom as you want, but nothing changes if you only look at 1 company to change. A lot of people also forget the decent things they've done, like making DLC cross buy, including the DLC characters with the Vita version of SF X T (it's a voucher for the PS3 version), giving away the new alternate costume pack for Vita users and even giving out codes when they screwed up the DLC (allowing many to double dip). They were also decent enough to keep Shuma / Jill as DLC, so DLC buyers / CE buyers didn't get completely shafted like we see in every other updated edition. Sure buying them sucks, but at least that 1 time 10 dollar fee unlocked them in 3 different versions of the game. So in the end, perhaps do some more research before stating your opinion.
It's not necessary! Hell DLC isn't even necessary. Great games will sell regardless. This just confirms most devs are too lazy to finish their games and rely on microtransaction to accommodate sales for lost consumers. Can't stress how important it is for us gamers to vote with our wallets. If our voices won't be heard, i'm sure our wallets will.
Exactly! The publishers are like the Velociraptors from Jurassic Park. Methodologically testing the fences daily for a weak spot or unhinged latch. Once that hole is formed, it is hunting time on our gaming souls! :P The gaming industry will only be as greedy as we allow them to be. Don't be afraid to put your wallet away if you are feeling used like an ATM at a strip club.
Ugh if next generation is full of "fee's to play" games I will be buying a lot less for sure. I can't stand that stuff. I have no doubt the industry will try to go that way. They can get people to spend a couple hundred dollars instead of just 60. So what we will get will be 60 dollar games with "fee to play" models behind them. Think Uncharted on a whole new level when it comes to EA and Activision, and I'm talking about the "free to play" version. This and the idea of raising game prices even further scares the heck out of me..... more so than blocking used titles.
Is such a mouthpiece for the industry big wigs. I don't think any one should pay this dude any mind. He gets paid to drive certain agendas for certain third parties..I believe EA is top on that list of priorities.
Yep you're on the money m8. Saw him switch into wearing a suit on Gametrailers and did a 180 on a ton of topics he had opinions on before. He's an industry whore, and to be honest needs to be virtualy shot in the neck.
I wonder, does Pachter think he speaks for the average gamer when by definition his actual job is in favor of game companies and give him no representative grounds for the "average gamer?"
I actually don't understand the big deal that everyone has with them. They're not mandatory. You can simply choose not to get them and then continue on with enjoying your game. Similar to DLCs, if you want the extra content, then you have to pay for it just like how you payed for the main game. If someone could please give me a logical and civil explanation (in the form of a reply) as to why they are evil, then I would really appreciate it :)
I think it's the concept that these things SHOULD be free, since they were in the past. I also think a lot of it has to do with the FEAR that we will get less bang for our buck as everything nonessential to the final product will cost money. While I can't say it's the most reasonable fear in the world, we've seen companies go further and further with the "online passes". We've also seen with Dead Space 3 that a lot of content looks "removed", since they had roughly 5 costumes / unique weapons done at the time of releases, plus an alternate version of every part in the game that were limited to DLC. (the parts COULD be obtained via Ration's though) Either or, better to put your foot down now, than when we're all paying X dollars more to play as a different class in Borderlands 3.
You see there are people who only see the present (you) while there are others who focus on the future (me). Not saying it is a good or bad thing, just how we are. When they become normalize, companies will be looking for the "next step". Instead of paying for extra XP or early weapons/weapon bundles, we will end up having to pay for missions/levels/important story sequences. This has already been done, by Capcom of all companies, where that the ending for Asuras Wrath costs $5. Of course if you want the entire story, including the ending everything comes at a price of $15. Companies will eventually follow in Capcom's foot steps saying, "If they can do it and make extra profit then so can we". Microtransactions in terms of video games, not free to play games (ios), will eventually lead to the story (essence) of games being held back for profit.
So the essential issue is what they may lead to in the future. Where, instead of simply being limited to nonessential items and bonuses, they encroach upon the actual story that the game is trying to (or should be trying to) tell. With all of it basically being due to corporate greed. Alright. Thanks, bro :) I had a feeling that this was what it boiled down, I just wanted it laid out in a civil and understandable manner.
Console only gamers vehemently reject: a) digital distribution b) an increase in software MSRP c) paying for server support d) free to play e) micro-transactions f) blocking second hand sales point is every solution the game industry has introduced or discussed to offset the monetary increase in game development has been met with universal contempt. How many more game studios need to close while Gamestop opens 10 more stores before people realize the current business model is NO longer working?
You have to analyze the mindset of publishers, developers, and other companies within the industry. Look at what gaming is adopting and why. See why prices for development is increasing. Look at what the consoles provide for development. Look at how consumers react to various methods of payments. Combine it all and you can find your solution, maybe even the best of all possible solutions. However, it may not be something singular.
Its not that bad remember Guitar Hero and Rock Band? it added more content and more fun times. I think it depends on how you see the topic.
If it takes a finish product and that adds more to it like GTA4 for example, then yes, DLC is a good thing. Taking an old game and adding a dimension to add hours of play I'm all for and should be encouraged. But adding little bits and pieces that were obviously in the game at the start but you have to pay to access them on top of the price you already paid for the game.... Hell no!
And if they stayed with something like Rock Band, which isn't story driven and actually relies on new content, it wouldn't be a problem. But we're seeing games with "extended" or "enhanced" endings which aren't only Mass Effect. That there's DLC that's in planning along side a game, somehow not effecting the titles plot and out come, is why this pisses people off.
nec·es·sar·y [nes-uh-ser-ee] adjective, noun, plural nec·es·sar·ies. 1. being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part of the motor. Yeah, no. The industry is over 3 decades old. Microsoft brought Microtransactions to consoles with Live and that didn't happen until 2005. Microtransactions started out as greed, and continue as such. That's just fact. Pachter, shut up for once.
I wonder who pays Pachter to make these false statements. It must be the devil.
Once again I don't agree with Pachter. I don't always disagree with him though. Gamers are not up in arms because of microtransactions per se, they are against it because they understand the long term implications. Once microtransactions become the norm and are widely accepted, the companies have the gamers by the balls. Imagine playing KZ or Halo online and constantly getting beaten by a particular player. You can't understand it. Your tactics are sound and your weapon seems capable, but you just can't beat him. Then you find out that he's using 'special' armour and an extremely powerful weapon that can ONLY be 'purchased' as part of a microtransacion, and they can't be earned during the singleplayer campaign. This is the future that gamers are fearful of and it has a very strong likelihood of happening if publishers get complete control.
Pachter is a necessary evil....wait, no hes not...just get rid of him along with microtransactions
DLC, Micro, Online Passes are a no-go for me. As soon as I hear that stuff for a game, it makes me want to avoid the game. And I don't think I'm the only one.
same way i feel man. I've bought many games where i felt the experience i got wasn't justified by the money i spent.
Dont forget day one DLC, that's basicly the biggest rip-of, since it could just been on the disc. Hell some day one DLC is on the disc! You just need to buy the licence to unlock it...
People that deem evil "necessary" think the alternatives are too hard.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.