Microtransactions are making their way into next-gen games, is this a bad thing for the industry?
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.
"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.
"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?
??? 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.
"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.
@ 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.
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.
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
If it gives an online advantage yeah it's bad, but how many games actually do that? Give a competitive advantage for money?
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.
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?
To answer that title: THE UGLY in the games industry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Does that actually happen or were you just making up an example?
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.
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.
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?
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?
No, I won't just find myself "splashing the cash". I just won't buy/play those games that are built around microtrancactions.
they're moot because you can simply ignore them, and they won't have any effect on the available content in the game since you are already able to obtain everything in the game without having to pay any extra money.
"In short, microtansctions [sic] are great, as long as they don’t damage the games integrity" But by their very nature, that is exactly what they do. Microtransactions exist to conceal the actual amount of money you will spend to get a complete and satisfying experience out of a game, and many times advertise themselves as "free". They also exists to nickel and dime people after they have already paid the game. This microtransaction/"free&qu ot; to play mentality goes all the way back to the "free lunch", which is salty to make the people who eat it want to buy drinks at the establishment. I am not up for "free" salty food (ie, a grind) that exists to make me spend money or buy things I would not have otherwise bought, or spending my money on vending machines. A company or person with integrity can put their product on the table and tell you exactly what it will cost, and provide you with a complete and functional product that is designed with the customer's satisfaction in mind. Microtransactions and "free" to play are the strategy of people who are unable to do that... the people without real integrity.
I dispize microtransactions! In AC4 multiplayer you now have the option to unlock abilities and vanity items with real money. My problem is that items at the higher end cost 60,000 Abstergo Credits (in-game currency). A rough calculation indicates that At 100 credits per game which takes 15 minutes you'd have to play for 150 hours to unlock one characters outfit. Multiply that buy 12 for all the standard characters and your at 1,800 hours! That is not what I call optional. I should be able to obtain those items in a reasonable amount if time without spending more money.
I don't mind microtransactions....I guess it's how there implemented. As long as the items are obtainable by playing the game...and yes, the reward for earning them probably shouldn't be crazy & or over extensive hours or tasks....What I can't stand is, the new policy of some shooters making certain weapons only available to Premium / Season pass purchasers....Okay, I get it..if they bought the DLC maps...then I obviously can't play those maps without buying it too...but when they can use weapons, that aren't available to everyone else (that bought the game too!)....it starts to effect the game experience & I feel slighted....If I'm looking at this wrongly....someone, please let me know...Thanks
Yes, they're the ugly of the games industry. It would be a perfect world (for gaming) if there were non invasive microtransactions in games & it came down to choice, if you wanted to spend money to speed up time. As long as the normal functions of the game aren't affected as a way to encourage microtransactions. Unfortunately there are always those with more money than sense & as such, there will always be sales data that peak publisher interests enough that microtransactions only increase in frequency. Microtransactions as they are, are a clear disrespect to the consumer, but unless we name, shame & speak with our wallets, it will only get worse.
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.