Micro-transactions: Good or Bad?

Drew Bergmark of Yesterday, the managing director of PikPok Games Mario Wynands spoke with NowGamer about topic that has been spreading like slime in Ghostbusters 2: micro-transactions. The more anger about it, the more the topic grows. What's all the fuss for games that use micro-transactions? It's not that publishers like EA are pointing a gun at you saying you have to buy these micro-transactions but still consumers are voicing their opinion. How will micro-transactions effect the industry at large: in a good way or in a bad way?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
2084d ago Replies(1)
ziggurcat2084d ago

they're irrelevant because you can acquire the same items through natural progression.

so, really... people shouldn't be getting their panties all up in a bunch over this.

theWB272084d ago

Agree with you. All I've ever seen with these is they're basically charging for cheat codes. Gamers say if it were done in a right way..which way? It's not detracting from the main game. But it seems gamers are, for some reason, feeling entightled to everything and should be given free. All free.

LightofDarkness2084d ago

Free? They're paying full price for the game up front. If this was free-to-play (the model that microtransations were created to support), you'd be right. But you are already paying for the FULL game. You ARE entitled to everything in that case.

theWB272084d ago

So we aren't getting full games now? Are we paying for endings(actual endings, not the one you disagree with)

@LightofDarkness..we are getting full games. All that other stuff is EXTRA..we still play the game. We get the beginning middle and ends.

In the case of Dead Space..all thsoe micros you can buy can also be found in-game. They give the player the choice to BUY them instead.

I dont think there's been ONE case where we payed extra for the CORE game to be finished. I dont a gamer has ever been stopped and told to -insert quarter to finish final boss- (example)

admiralvic2084d ago

The issue is that some people are thinking ahead / researching the topic and others just write it off.

The long / short is, right now they're not a problem, but many iOS games THRIVE off nickel and dimming you till you lost interest. We've seen several iOS games where buying items would take a VAST amount of time to accomplish, which forces dedication or payment. The other side is much worse, but HAS been implemented on 1 PS3 game already. This is the system Zookeeper VS uses.

You see, the game gives you 1 match (or token to play a match) per 6 minutes real time. You can bank this time, but you can't blank more than 2 tokens. If you wish to play more often, you can buy an item to play additional games, but these add at most 6 and removes your ability to gain another match till you're back down to 2 attempts. So while some people (like my Mother) would gladly pay even an absurd sum like $15 dollars to play it an unlimited amount, she's forced to deal with their awful limitations, pay their absurd fees (6 games = $1, 36 = $5, 72 = $10, 180 = $23) or play nothing at all.

Since it's harder to prevent these AFTER they happen, people are trying to show their outrage now over having another DLC event. For those unaware about the DLC event... they ORIGINALLY were awesome things like Halo 2 offered you the map pack for X dollars or wait till (and the date was given on day 1) ____ date to get it for free. Now a days we see Limited Editions, Collectors Editions, Special Editions, Preorder Items, Buy X Get Y promotions that slowly erode the value of a game I literally just bought.

The Great Melon2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

Theoretically it should have no relevance to the quality of the game if you can pay to cheat. Unfortunately micro-transactions might subtly enter into the design of the game.

For example:

"Weapon-specific ammo was allegedly switched for generic ammo late in development, too, as a method for shoehorning in the game's controversial micro-transactions."

While EA denied canceling Dead Space 4 in that recently hot article, this sort of act that was brought up is entirely plausible regardless whether or not it truly happened.

BrianC62342084d ago

The only way they'd be bad is if you have to buy them to finish the game. I have no problem with DLC to let you play more levels as long as they aren't taken out of the actual game. Go ahead and let people buy little things like outfits or weapons. That's no big deal. If you don't like it just don't buy them.

LightofDarkness2084d ago (Edited 2084d ago )

Look, if you pay $60 or full price for a game, you should get the complete package. Micro-transactions were intended as a means of monetizing the free-to-play model. It meant the player could pay for only what they wanted, or not pay at all. When you pay full price for a game, you should get the FULL game and everything that comes with that.

Now I know: EA didn't remove items from DS3 and go on to sell them as microtransactions. Except... yes, they did. Weapon specific ammo was replaced by generic ammo to support microtransactions. A staple of horror games was removed for the sake of expansion in microtransactions. Still think it doesn't affect you if you don't buy them?

More to that, these used to be cheat codes, unlockables and other nice extras that were included in the full price of the game. Now you still pay full price and are expected to pay for these too, as if full price only covers the bare minimum game. Not ok.

Once again, this has been bastardized by old business men who can't stand to compete against a new business model, who then twist and distort it to fit their old business model. It is something of a fad, because it looks good on spreadsheets. Comparatively, microtransactions will obviously have far more growth than retail sales or any other transaction right now because they are only now expanding into it. This guy can point to the nice upward slant on a graph and impress the investors and the board, and can then pretend to be doing a great job. This is why they say "gamers obviously want them" and that they're selling well. Growth in this area dwarfs that of any other.
These are not good for the industry when applied to full price games. Do not try to defend this.

BrianC62342084d ago

Just don't buy it then. I have no problem with most of it. As long as we don't have to buy anything to finish the game. If gamers don't buy it the idea will die.

Roper3162084d ago

if it's doesn't unbalance the game MP wise or if content isn't purposely with held to sell it for extra I could not careless.

If they are gimping games & unbalancing MP matches over MT's than yes I have a problem with it.

So it all boils down to how the MT's are implemented in the game.

Show all comments (21)
The story is too old to be commented.