Clive Lawton of Corrupted Cartridge names and shames some of the worst offending games with regards to microtransactions.
I think the microtransaction controversy is mostly entitled gamers whining and moaning about something they don't have to participate in. If someone wants to pay extra for something that they can get for free in-game, it's their perogative. If a developer decides to make a game more monotonous and tedious as an attempt to encourage MTs, then It will result in a game that is less fun, and ultimately hurt sales. Again, their perogative. I play quite a few games that include microtransactions, and never have I felt compelled to buy anything. I either play through it normally, and enjoy it, or a find the grind monotonous, and I discard it, problem solved. With regards to Forza 5, and GT6, I think the controversy was over blown. with Forza, most of the people complaining failed to mention that 1) owners of previous Forza titles were given a ton of free credits, 2) there are several ways to earn credits: by playing with fewer assists, by having a skilled drivatar (who will earn you credits while you aren't even playing) , and by sharing customizations. It really dioesnt require an extreme amount of grinding. Just an effort to get better at the game.
"I think the microtransaction controversy is mostly entitled gamers whining and moaning about something they don't have to participate in." And I think people who use your arguments are lazy people who'd rather pay to win than play to win. If it's an issue of time, then gaming isn't the hobby for you, otherwise you just suck. You see? Anyone can place blame on the consumer and not the greed filled company trying to water down gaming by nickle and diming every aspect of it. The more you accept bad practices, the worse those practices become until the point where there's nothing but bad practices and nothing that can be done about it? Why? Because of apathy like yours.
You must not have read my argument, because I have never paid for a micro transaction in my life... My argument is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. If people stopped buying it, companies wouldn't do it. The folks who do like it, are free to spend their money as they see fit...It's their money.. There are some games I play that have MTs as an option, but I would rather progresses the old fashion way. If I feel like the game is too tedious for those who don't pay, I stop playing the game. Problem solved... Really, you must not have read my post...
I read your post. You opened it with a ridiculous argument so I countered it. Indifference is what companies who use poor practices like MTs count on. The more you support them, and yes you are supporting them with condoning the existence of MTs, the worse things they'll try. Why? Because people like you go around saying "why are you upset, it's an option people can use." So again, ridiculous argument is ridiculous.
GT6? Seriously? This game gives more credits than GT5, events give you literally millions. I don't think it broke anything, comparing to GTA Online, which is amazingly not mentioned at all.
@mhunterjr Not most of the gamers need to give in for a company to keep putting these practices in the games they make. If a million copies get sold and only 50,000 of those million buy these shortcuts and power ups, then they'll keep putting them in if it keeps making them some extra money. The "don't buy them if you don't support them" saying makes for a lazy argument as these practices potentially can effect every other buyer and then spread like wildfire where more companies borrow the same ideas. Eventually gamers are going to be touched and effected in their favorite games, it's a matter of time when this becomes common like pre-order bonuses or first day DLC. It effected my GTA 5 experience and really slowed it down as I don't buy shark cash cards for easy money and look what Rockstar have become. Lowering money and XP gains as time went by, how many are going to be doing the same thing? And where did they get the idea from? From games that follow the same thing but yet, they are successful because there's actually a group that buys them. You just lack the understanding to look at the bigger picture. This also adds more work to balancing things out for people or negatively effecting it like GTA 5. Wouldn't it be easier and good for all of us to just make it even for everyone and use the extra time from balancing it to improve the game even further? Where's the GTA Heist mode? Time wasted putting out patches lowering XP and money gains to make Shark Card buyers feel like they got their money's worth. Just an example of what it can effect. Hopefully it doesn't become an "option" just cause a few games let the idea in to put microtransactions in console games we already paid for.
Your counter argument suggests I want to pay to win... Which is something my post clearly says I don't support. So how is that a counter argument? No, companies are motivated to perform certain practices by money, not by posts on a blog. I have never financially supported microtransactions, so there's no way you can say my behavior is supportive of their practices...instead of whining about it, I just give my money to those who's games are designed to my liking. Consumers want options. If someone enjoys paying for MTs, who am I to tell them not to? It's their money to waste as they see fit. What's ridiculous is this notion that every single game needs to be designed to cater to YOUR needs. THAT'S entitlement. What's ridiculous is the notion that the mere existence of microtransactions is "ruining gaming". There are some games that do it right (like team fortress 2). there are some games that do it wrong. There are plenty games that don't do it all. Then there are the experiments that see varying degrees of success. Through it all, there continues to be plenty of game for everyone. Play the ones that suit you. If you have a problem with the way a game is designed, simply don't play that game.
"Your counter argument suggests I want to pay to win... Which is something my post clearly says I don't support. So how is that a counter argument?" Clearly you didn't see this part... "You see? Anyone can place blame on the consumer and not the greed filled company trying to water down gaming by nickle and diming every aspect of it." "I have never financially supported microtransactions" Irrelevant. You still support them with indifference and spreading that message along. You are one voice among others who say the same thing "it's just an option" regardless of the consequences to such indifference. Allow people to think it's ok to pay money to win, and not only do they not bother trying to improve themselves, but they become more receptive to further attempts to gouge. "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile." "Consumers want options." Can you point me to any documented proof that consumers have asked for a pay to win option? What if "pay to win" decided to infect other hobbies? Like sports for example. Sure, there are thrown matches for bets and stuff, but what if major sporting events decided they would allow the consumer to pay to see their favourite team win? Go to a stadium, donate some money to see your team win, and whichever side donated the most will be granted a default win thanks to the opposing team purposely throwing the game? Is that an option you'd back with your indifference and support of supposed "options?" "What's ridiculous is the notion that the mere existence of microtransactions is "ruining gaming"." It is ruining gaming. There are already examples of games with MTs as the main business model purposely increasing the difficulty of achieving the same results through legitimate play. Beyond that, there remains the possibility of that occurring. And when other publishers see the laziness of people unwilling to improve their skills, willing to open their wallets just to win, and noticing how much money can be made off of that, then guess where their design philosophies will go. You said it yourself, companies are motivated by money. If more money is made by paying to win, more games will be made encouraging pay to win. If you're a gamer who isn't paying to win, then you won't be the customer that a company who uses a pay to win model wants buying their stuff because you're unlikely to pay for more than just the initial game. History has proven that indifference never leads to anything good. You support MTs not with your money, but with your words. Companies may not listen to your words, but if enough people spout off the same nonsense, people will start to believe it's ok. For those of us who want gaming to be good, progressive, and about actually gaining something from playing, you are the antithesis of that desire.
I highly doubt that many people who use this site actively use microtransactions when they play their games. However, we are not the only demographic and that's the biggest issue. There are a lot of people who would rather have some sort of competitive edge when playing a game like Forza 5, so they'll want to pick the easiest method of getting that edge, even if it costs them extra money. As the author said, this is an act of conditioning by the publishers. This is becoming more and more common, so more and more people are accepting of it, or even worse, ignorant of the alternative where you just play the game and don't have to pay money to advance. There's nothing "entitled" about someone who demands a full game instead of a demo with the ability to pay money just to get marginally further along, and there's certainly nothing "entitled" about someone who doesn't want that kind of subtle exploitation put on their fellow gamers.
How does a person 'get an edge' in forza 5. It's one thing to buy an expensive car. It's another thing to know how to handle it. Someone who uses real cash will still have to put time into the game if they actually what to be competitive. Besides, the races are set up by car classes. So regardless of how the car was obtained, he'll be taking against people with similar vehicles. A better example would be a game like gtaV, where someone who uses MTs can go into a match with better weapons and more ammunition.
How accepting would you be if every game had microtransactions, and forced you to grind or pay up? If you are accepting of them now, then you are part of the problem.
Like I clearly said in my post, If I feel a game requires an excessive grind in order to progress, I simply don't play that game... Problem solved. I refuse to pay MTs. So if a game punishes that stance with tedium, monotony, and boredom, then I treat it like any other tedious, monotonous or boring game, I don't play it.
@mhunterjr You carry on then sunshine, I on the other hand will stay with the camp that will fight microtransactions so you don't have an ever depleting choice in games.
Sadly, the only way you can "fight" MT is to not get the game they're connected to whether they're free or paid. EA's information exploitation regarding Dungeon Keeper is pretty much the worst example to date of the direction MTs are going, only the Sims before had been the worst before then. Meaning EA experienced the backlash to their actions, and only tried again. Like I said in my earlier post below, the whole MT mess is fueled by a minority willing to pay for them and companies effecting the compromise the wants and expectations of the majority in order to "cater" towards that minority. The only way things will change is if no one buys the involved product, whether its free or not, in the first place. Doing nothing, accepting the existence or presence of MT in the games you buy, is not going to make them go away. Rather it will only encourage publishers to pressure developers to make you pay both attention and money on them.
Many games are adopting a pay-to-win structure. Effectively turning skill based games into monetary based games. And after seeing the ginormous income stream from shi**y "free2play" games, publishers will shovel this model down our throats in years to come. Personally, I am opposed and to be honest disgusted with this practice and will always stand firm against games incorporating pay2win models. It can be done tastefully without affecting gameplay however (dota2 for example), but youll see the encroachment of microtrans soon enough in your favourite games. Rough times!
There shouldn't be any microtransanctions in $60.00 plus tax games period. It makes both developers/publishers lazy and greedy. I have no qualms with free to play games due to the fact the game is free the online is free. If I as a consumer see that the game can only be advanced via microtransanctions or the grinding is monotonous then I as a consumer can walk away from say game without paying a dime. In contrast if the same situation were to arise from $60.00 plus tax games I would lose as a consumer $60.00 plus tax which is horrible for consumers which hopefully clarify my point as to I am against $60.00 plus tax games with microtransanctions like Gran Turismo 6, Forza 5, Diablo 3, The SimCity remake and Dead Space 3.
Microtransactions are not the problem, and problem is people who spend money on them. If nobody spent, they wouldn't exist
And the thing is only a few people are needed to show/provide a profit.
That's exactly the problem. These bits of content take such a minuscule amount of effort to make compared to the full game. No matter how much we protest there's always going to be a few thousand sales at a couple dollars. So now we have games stripping down to bare bones content and hoping to gouge those who are willing to pay extra. Everyone else gets left with an incomplete product.
If microtransactions didn't exist, there would be no money to spend on them, so yes they are the problem.
I strongly disagree. To dismiss microtransactions as just something you can take or leave without there being any consequences is the kind of attitude that would have let Microsoft continue with their original plans for the Xbox One. Whether you personally do or not, enough people are spending money on microtransactions that can be seen to have a clear negative effect on gameplay and difficulty balance. Good for you for not buying into any of the titles that restrict your enjoyment, but I wonder if you would be so blasé about it all if it was a franchise or reboot of something you really loved that was ruined. Just because it hasn't affected you at the moment doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Just look at the passivity that has lead to broken lauch games such as SimCity and Battlefield 4 becoming an industry norm now, and hopefully you'll see the wider implications. I personally will do what I can to warn people off titles that abuse microtransactions, or any other gameplay element or monetisation scheme I feel is not in the best interests of games and gamers.
I think you missed my point a little. I want saying they're fine because I dont buy them, I was saying that if NOBODY bought them they'd stop existing. No point complaining, people need to act and boycott them wholesale
ClydeRadcliffe - I agree with you. Sorry, my post was in response to the first comment.
I think Gameloft is the worst and most tasteless offender. My Little Pony on IOS bests the most solid from Satan's backside.
I don't see microtransations to be a problem in free to play games, but there full of shit if they think they can charge 60$ for a game and still include microtransactions in them.
Microtransactions...AKA the new cheats, except they cost you $$.. ridiculous to say the least, they focus on the least attractive feature of Free2Play titles and start slapping it around in 60 $ retail games, they even cut half the disc content to sort of entice you to chew in (Look Forza 5).
With the exception of the 2 console racers that list was all mobile garbage anyway, and who in their right mind is enticed to throw more money into a game they paid full retail for anyway (especially when said game is made to be more tedious and unbalanced when the "microtransactions" aren't used).
Exactly, but the problem is when games essentially force you to throw more money into a game we paid full retail for when we didn't have to in the past. Assassin's Creed IV multiplayer is an example of that happening. The designers have increased the grind to get new costumes etc. to the point where it's virtually impossible without throwing more money into there game. To unlock one of the top elite costumes for one of the characters will now take around 180 hours of gameplay, a reward you used to receive simultaneously for all characters as you leveled up in a much more reasonable amount of time, or you can pay $15 AUD per costume per character. I don't accept that these microtransactions are irrelevant just because they don't effect gameplay. They greatly effect my enjoyment because I now longer feel I'm being rewarded with these items for my achievements, components of character progression are now virtually locked behind a paywall and that sucks.
The F2P model is the problem. Most games that have this F2P design are designed in a way where it's tedious and boring to complete any action without paying for help. There's usually a level gate, set amount of energy, or a limited number of actions taken. This whole F2P design is built around the player spending money to move the game along and not at a snail's pace. Or to pay for an certain advantage a normal user wouldn't get. Lifelong players could spend well over the price of a normal retail game and when that happens in my opinion the game stops becoming free to play. It's a ridiculous game design and I hate to see this come to console retail games. It's bad enough DLC exists we do not need microtransactions too.
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.