Rare Shows the Industry How to Do Microtransactions Right

Microsoft and Rare are tackling microtransactions and loot boxes head on. With controversies surrounding Destiny 2, and Star Wars Battlefront 2. Has Rare learn to implement in game purchases, from the miss steps from Activision, Bungie, and EA. Will Sea of Thieves start an avalanche of change from other games in the industry?

[FallenAngel1984]

Warframe shows how to do microtransactions right, especially since it’s a F2P game that requires microtransactions to be profitable.

A $60 game like Sea of Thieves has no excuse to have microtractions, and not having loot boxes shouldn’t be something seen as a positive and thought highly of.

[moegooner88]

Praising a full priced retail game for not including loot boxes is nothing short of pathetic. Journalists are the ones making loot boxes seem like the norm.

[Brian7655492]

It is a full priced online game, some of you seem to forget that. The dlc will be for things like buying pets later on. Why are so many of you resentful of adding content to an online game that can keep things entertaining for those who want more?

These are not things that are forced upon those playing, some of you seem to neglect that. This is a game designed to be played for months and months, not a one shot deal so of course it will have to be monetized since the game itself was never designed to be static like a single player title. Online shooters add maps, more weapons and so on, is it not unheard of to ask for money if work is still being done? I am sure you are not aksed to work for free.

MMO titles come with a monthly fee to keep servers going on and then they also charge for expansion packs and so on. Sea of Thieves is not asking for a monthly fee but rather adding cosmetics and such that are all optional. There is no pay to win methololgy here.

It appears many of you don't want to listen regardless and are set in stone of how games should be priced as though we still all play games like we did on our NES systems.

[Christopher]

***It is a full priced online game, some of you seem to forget that. The dlc will be for things like buying pets later on. Why are so many of you resentful of adding content to an online game that can keep things entertaining for those who want more? ***

Resentment? No. But I don't think people should give praise for someone doing what they should have done to begin with.

The praise they will get will come when we use it as a comparison of how to properly implement MTX in a game compared to others.

Furthermore there are F2P online games that have done MTX right for ages. They're the ones we should be parading around, not the latest $60 game with cosmetic MTX. This sense to just want to hold Microsoft aloft for doing what should be a no brainier.

It's good that they're doing it, but have we come so far that we give praise for not robbing people rather than going above and beyond to give more to people for less (how much free content was there for The Witcher 3, a SP game?).

[starchild]

@UnHoly_One

I agree. People lumping all "microtransactions" together is stupid and counterproductive. I don't like microtransactions that affect the core gameplay experience, but cosmetic stuff is just an extra layer that people can choose to utilize or not. I simply don't mind them at all.

It's like when games have unlockable costumes and such. I don't usually have the time to play enough to unlock things like that, but I don't cry if other people do have the time and desire. And it's the same way with cosmetic items people choose to pay for. It's their choice. If it makes them happy, cool.

[Kryptix]

The best kind of microtransaction in a 60 dollar game? When it has none.

Doesn't matter if it's a Microsoft game or a Sony game or Nintendo.

The gaming industry has grown, there's more consumers with the added benefit of digital distribution which locks in a legitimate sale.

If anything, they should include new cosmetic items in DLC "expansions" rather splitting it apart to nickel and dime you.

They could even give them for free and entice more people to purchase the game rather than not. Good publicity is good marketing. I always respect a dev when they give free content which leads me to purchase more of their games in the future.

[wheresmymonkey]

yes this is Journalists fault... Hey I see a postman over there why don't you go have a pop seeing as you seme to enjoy shooting the messenger.

Not his is the fault of publishers. Plain and simple.

[S2Killinit]

I dont get it, if they have microtransactions in a FULL PRICED game, then its already a shi*y business tactic. Sea of thieves is not a free to play game. Choose ONE and do that.

[Markusb33]

Shills and frauds excusing the practice in general. Corp slaves idiots.
This is why gaming as a service will carry on due to sycophants.

[IamTylerDurden1]

I think ppl take issue with a full priced game getting praised for having "good" microtransactions. If they make a great game and support it and the community continues to grow they should continue to get sales and that revenue alone should suffice. There are ways to get proper revenue without microtransactions for cosmetics that probably should just be in the game anyway. Well crafted expansions are another. And there are plenty of games that get worked on relentlessly after launch without microtransactions. Witcher 3, GT Sport, HZD.

[christocolus]

@Brian

Well said. Totally ok with cosmetic MTs in this game. The game will hopefully be a huge success for Rare and MS. Can't wait.

[RpgSama]

I remember when all the "cosmetic" items you could unlock them in games by just playing (without spending an insurmountable amount of hours), but now it's not only ok to sell them to you after you bought the game full price, it seems is also the right thing to do?! We should be getting away of any kind of extra monetization of games, not to a different kind

I'm pre-ordering the most expensive edition of Cyberpunk 2077 as soon as available, CD Project Red is the kind of developer I want and will support.

[Jmanzare]

You're right it sucks. But with game development costing so much I don't mind other people having shinier pants than me and 2 peg legs to keep games at 60 bucks

[Atanasrikard]

Do you also remember when those games you bought never received any support after they were released?

[mark_parch]

You can unlock cosmetic items by just playing the game. they have also said there will be plenty of items rewarded for doing hard quests that can't be bought with real money which is great. this is a multiplayer game which will be supported for years so monetization is necessary and this is best way to do it imo. NO GAME SHOULD HAVE LOOT BOXES AND NO SINGLE PLAYER GAME SHOULD NEED MONETIZATION

[Rachel_Alucard]

Stupidest part is people trying to push microtransactions as DLC/add on content, when its nothing of the sort.

@jmanzare

The cost of development rising is a lie by publishers to justify maxmizing profits to its shareholders. Costs have been the same since 2009, you know before loot boxes? Look at this video for an explanation https://youtu.be/PTLFNlu2N_...

[Michiel1989]

@atanasrikard yeah and you know why? because they didnt release as a massive bugfest with cut content....

[neutralgamer1992]

RPG

Remember when we use to have cheat codes to make games more fun and unlock some cool stuff

Yeah now those are considered MT

For those of you defending MT or LB for any reason, you are the reason we are where we are today. These publishers are testing the waters to see what can they get away with

For example: Activision got next to no negative PR even though WW2 had MT and LB just as bad as star wars battlefront 2

Activision made more money from MT and LB than actually selling their games

GTA online makes 5 million per day

EA makes over a half billion from ultimate teams in Fifa and madden

For honor has a pay wall of over $700

What some of you fail is realize is the fact developers go out of their way to make game grind that must mor3 tedious in hopes of frustrating players into paying

If publishers want MT than their games should cost anything and rather should be F2P. They are applying the same MT to fully priced games

[rainslacker]

I remember that a lot of games had them, but outside of some instances, I haven't seen a huge reduction of those kinds of things in games. MT, in general, actually just give more. I also see these kinds of extras in more games than we used to, which was done through the MT process.

I don't think MT have reduced the amount of extra content across the board, but I do think they have added to the overall available content.

Then of course you have things like the ME3 DLC, which obviously was stripped from the original game, as it had pretty strong ties to the main narrative.

There are a lot of anecdotal instances which support your case, so it's hard to argue, but in most games that I like to play, I haven't noticed a huge reduction. In those instances which don't abuse the customers willingness to pay, or overlook removal of content, then I have no problem with the cosmetic MT, so long as they're transparent.

[RpgSama]

@Neutralgamer1992

You're definitely right, when I read " Rare shows the Industry How to Do Microtransactions Right" my reaction was "F*** NO!!"

There is NO right way to do paid MT on a Full Priced game, I'd rather they charge us more for games, I would rather pay $70/80 for a complete package, but a real, full sized, full content game, rather than a glorified Beta that they will keep adding to it as long as people keep paying for stuff

[NapalmSanctuary]

@Atanasrikard

I remember when games were ready to go on day one, without the need for support.

@RpgSama

I agree that games that fall under the 'games as a service' category should be f2p. Unfortunately, Warframe is the only game that I know of that comes close to getting the model correct.

[Atanasrikard]

@Michiel

You mean bugs like these?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.c...

@Napalm

Yes and you completed those games after a few hours and then moved on to the next. The idea behind supporting the game after release is added new content and updates to keep giving players more of what they enjoy.

[mastiffchild]

Game development is not too expensive for publishers not to include mtx. EA even said that taking lootboxes out of BF2 wouldn't hurt the bottom line.

A full price game, esp one without the supposedly expensive SP portion, has zero reason to have mtx. Not one. It's greed and cosmetics do matter as they denote haves and have nots which is how they force us to buy things that, previously, would definitely have been in the game.

Journalists apologising for this stuff are shills and the direct enemy of gamers. Loot boxes are worse, sure, but this is still purely greed. Map packs as dlc is bad enough let alone this cack.

[ClanPsi1]

The fact that there is more than one version should tip you off that they aren't as great as you think.

[Rhythmattic]

Rachel_Alucard
Great Vid...
im am now subbed to Skill Up.

[zerocarnage]

If it's not affecting gameplay and micros and loot boxes are cosmetics then can't complain really.

It's not like Henry the iquana is going to be licking you to death or betty the bird is going to be swooping down from above on your ass for extra damage and being a nuisance.

I would much rather publishers and developers go this route than what they have been doing, if anything congrats to Microsoft and rare for not choosing to be dicks like Activision with destiny, ea with star wars bf have been doing, like rock star with gta.

I play fortnite and luckily Thx to a few events early on I've got legendary characters, traps, weapons and so on, but at first the game made me feel like I had to spend and I did a bit and that was the last of it. Fortnite is bad luck on loot liammas and it takes an eternity to get a decent drop, that being said they are adding more and more ways to earn stuff.

But still I hate loot boxes, but if it's just cosmetics, players can easily say no compared to if they're in game items that affect gameplay, no game should be like that.

[Yohshida]

That is why you are wrong:

Almost every AAA game today has a Season Pass and gets expanded beyond release. Sea of Thieves is getting new content for years (if its successfull) and this is why its okay for them to include cosmetics you can buy. Its not like a AAA SP game that comes out with a butload of MTs and wont get additional content.

If they support the game with new stuff im all for it.

[SierraGuy]

EXACTLY!

[UCForce]

See ? Micro transactions is only acceptable in F2P game. I’m sorry, but who defend MT in full price game is unacceptable and poor excuse. Again and again, MT should belong to F2P, not full price game.

[Kribwalker]

so would you rather pay $25 for the frozen wilds, or, have cosmetic optional MTs and get the frozen wilds for free? Cosmetic ones you wouldn’t have to pay a cent for.
Now apply that to a massive online game, where the player base will never be split up because all of the DLC is free

[Goldby]

i'd rather give them the 25$ for the expansion and have those cosmetics included for free... like they did :)

[Christopher]

Reminds me of a Chris Rick bit: "I pay my child support... You want a cookie for doing what you're supposed to do?!?"

[ziggurcat]

Who is Chris Rick?

[rainslacker]

I think there are plenty of games which "do micro-transactions right". The fact a game is now getting praise because it's apparently doing them right is just ridiculous. On top of that, there are still those who don't like MT of any kind in their games, so is Rare still doing it right for them? I kind of felt the same way about the Witcher dev saying something as well, although they have a history of being good about stuff like that, whereas Rare will have to succumb to whatever MS wants at some point. It shouldn't be a selling point that you don't have MT, or that you have less distasteful MT. Just make a good game, with good content, and let it stand on it's own merits. The MT can be discussed separately from that.

I can respect and compliment a dev/pub that doesn't try to fleece the consumer while saying that they're actually necessary or trying to validate their existence for whatever reason, but the MT discussion is going nowhere with the way it's being handled now. This same kind of stuff went on last gen. The overbearing MT, followed by the praise of those who were more consumer friendly. Followed by even more egregious forms of MT which kept getting worse and worse. What can possibly be achieved by repeating history on this matter. Gamers proved that if they make enough of a fuss, they can affect change before this gen started. The press was on our side. Do that again, and then maybe the happy medium can be found that keeps both consumers and publishers happy.

[Tko1111]

I get it You want businesses to not make money 💰 . Do you know how much games cost to make? Do you realize that it’s not mandatory an as a option you can avoid it

[AspiringProGenji]

Many games already do MTs “right.” If by “right” you mean the illusion of them being optional then that’s not right. MTs have no place in $60 games. There’s never a “right way” to include them. It is still predatory no matter what. If they think including them 3 months after release will avoid distaste or backlash, they are wrong. It will only prove the game does not need MTs and that they are being sneaky

[Kribwalker]

Would you like optional micro transactions that don’t affect the game but you get a continuous stream of free DLC that everyone gets

or

Pay $49.99 for an expansion pass to your already $60 game that segregates and splits the player base.

How can you argue against that? You could buy a $60 game and never spend another dime but yet continuous content. Why would you have a problem with that?

[notachance]

meh..

- warframe is F2P
- kept giving us constant new contents.. I stopped playing for two months and when I come back there's already so much difference
- literally every time paid content is released they can be earned in game by playing just a couple of hours without spending anything, they're only being made paid content only for people who don't want to farm a little bit
- the developers themselves hold weekly live discussion with fans, and is very reachable in regards to discussion.

This game shows the industry how to do microtransactions right since long, long ago. It's laughable that the author thinks a full on $60 multiplayer-only game which has microtransactions 'shows the industry how to do it right'

[Jinger]

Eh, most of the people who complain are the ones who mostly like story based games anyway. That's why they don't mind that even Uncharted is filled with them in the MP mode, because none of them play that anyway.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Warframe also sucks and has awful character designs. The enemies...wow...uglyAF

[_-EDMIX-_]

I feel the best way to do microtransactions right in a game is to not have them in the first place.

[Cyborgg]

Sea of Thieves beta suck to me.

[ziggurcat]

How about no MTs with a continuous stream of free DLC that everyone gets?

[rainslacker]

@VJ

I haven't seen a lot of love for season passes on this site either, so I don't know what you're talking about.

As far as the question goes, season passes tend to give different kinds of content than the typical MT, which tends to be focused more on smaller items like cosmetics, or the less desirable, ways to improve your avatar so you can gain an advantage, which is even worse in MP games at times. Season passes tend to give more content in the form of added levels or maps or whatnot, and some of those expansions come with added things you'd also see from MT.

Most people don't have a problem with an expansion, because in theory it's supposed to add playable and compelling content to a game people may like. Season passes generally focus on giving more future content at a discounted price. Season passes, or expansions, are typically only a problem when that content is stripped from the original game, and the original game gives less content because of it.

To answer the question though

It's been proven that MT that don't affect game play, or e can help support the addition of new free content which doesn't split the user base, and in cases MT that are not as desirable can do the same, is usually acceptable to most. There are some that want absolutely no MT in their games, but that's not likely to happen across the board regardless of if it's meant to support ongoing expansions or not. Not every game gets these expansions....in fact, most don't. It's not hypocrisy, it's that you equate two different things as being the same. Not everyone asks for expansions, nor expects them in all games. If you think every person that has an opinion is also speaking for everyone else who also have their own opinions, and feel those opinions somehow all coincide in one voice, then you just fail to comprehend that gamers are diverse....not hypocritical.

@Bad

Yeah, only MS has been getting heat for MT lately. You make a strong point coupled with strong evidence that MS just can't catch a break.

[ShadowWolf712]

That's a completely false dichotomy and neither are remotely necessary.

SEE: Witcher 3, HZD

[Kribwalker]

“ShadowWolf7121h ago
That's a completely false dichotomy and neither are remotely necessary.

SEE: Witcher 3, HZD”

Both of those had paid expansions. If they had cosmetic MTs maybe they would have been free.

UC4 has a paid expansion and MTs. What’s that games excuse?

[Goldby]

@Krib
"UC4 has a paid expansion and MTs"

So no a stand alone Game is considered a paid expansion.

Expansions add on to the original game. and you can buy and play TLL without buying UC4.

fail!

[343_Guilty_Spark]

How is optional an illusion?

[Rachel_Alucard]

It gives the signaling to people that its ok because its optional, but in reality it pushes you to buy them due to the game being set up as a grind that would take a long time or having content that just requires too much time for little reward, and in todays world most people dont have the time anymore

[Kribwalker]

@rachel
but this gear has nothing to do with any progression in the game. it is 100% cosmetic so it’s 100% optional

[Rachel_Alucard]

@kribwalker

You're missing the point. If there are no levels, no gear, and no way to progress outside of farming faction exp, then people are naturally going to see cosmetics as the goal to reach. This exact situation happens in many games, though unintentionally in most of them. You think everyone is going for levels and grandmaster rank in Overwatch and CoD now? Nope, theyre all after those cosmetics instead.

[rainslacker]

@Rachel

The grind would be there regardless in this game. GaaS tends to thrive through grind. Even games that don't rely heavily on MT have grind, and sometimes, it's more than games that are GaaS type games.

The only incentive to buy would come from those who don't have the patience, or possibly time to resit the desire to buy them. The so called short cut. It's not an illusion unless the game play is specifically designed to encourage people to take that short cut....as was the case with SW:BF.

Optional isn't bad, and the way things are going, it's probably the best you're going to see going forward. It's about the best we've seen after all these years anyhow, outside the games which don't offer MT at all. Optional is bad, when the two options presented mean either not being as enjoyable without paying more or just giving in and buying a short cut.

[Razzer]

“MTs have no place in $60 games. ”

The alternative is $80 games. That is where we would be right now if it were not for post-sale transactions. That isn’t a popular viewpoint here, but it is the truth. Personally I’d rather allow others to buy their cosmetics and keep upfront prices down.

[Razzer]

lol....sheep? Ah...bullshit. It is called reality. Base prices of games haven’t risen in over 10 years. You think games are immune to inflation? Devs/pubs are finding alternatives in revenue with harmless optional cosmetics. I see nothing wrong with that. Why you care what other people buy....no damn clue.

[Christopher]

This is false and you guys really need to stop selling on behalf of publishers who aren't looking to make a profit but looking to make more profit.

The cost, on average, has not increased for AAA games in ten years. What had increased is marketing costs and desired profit margins compared to previous years.

The fact that tons of single player games sell millions and keep getting made at the $60 price range alone should tell you how incorrect you are. Zelda, Mario, HZD, Nier, ffxv, and so many more to come. They prove that the issue isn't the cost, it's merely greed.

[Razzer]

False? Ok. Back it up then.

Inflation is an economic fact.

[rainslacker]

$80 games means that game sales go down, and likely revenue goes down both for new game sales, and MT since there are fewer people to sell those MT too. The market can only bear so much on the price of a new game, and $60 saw a sudden drop in new game sales when it was first introduced because of the sticker shock. Software sales went back up over time, but that was more due to the explosion of popularity of gaming as it went more mainstream.

The option is to make better games. If prices have to go up, they have to be within the realm of reason. No way are publishers making an additional $20 per regular copy sold off the sale of MT alone. There are whales, but not enough to bring in that sort of revenue. You're talking about an additional 33% increase in revenue from MT alone. At $80, you'd probably be looking at more than a 33% reduction in new game sales, which means overall revenue would go down.

Reality is is that games don't cost any more, or much more than they did last gen. Some do, some cost less. But on average, they're about the same.

The bigger reality is that the gaming market is growing faster than any other entertainment industry, and there are more people buying games nowadays, so the economies of scale are allowing games to stay at $60, because there are more game sales, thus more revenue. This is a fact that publishers like to leave out of their justifications of why it's so necessary to include MT to foot the bill for new games. The truth is, even a AAA game with a modest budget is likely to break even in today's gaming market....just like a lot of mid-tier games could easily turn a profit back in the PS1/PS2 days due to the install base and number of people buying games. You hear about the big games which don't sell well, but if you look at most of them closely, and ignore the oddball anecdote, most of those that don't sell well have some reason why they don't sell well....usually marketing, or bad design/publicity/whatever.

The biggest reality is that publishers have seen that there is a good revenue stream in MT. They will stick around regardless of the price of games. Unless you are so naive to believe that publishers like EA or Ubisoft would simply give up a viable revenue stream. If game prices go up, don't expect MT to go away, and it's reasonable to assume that these same publishers will continue to find more and more annoying ways to implement them within their games.

@343

How come you never ask the publishers to back up their claims that game development costs have gone up? They like to say it's the case, but they've never provided hard numbers. The occasional developer who doesn't say such things...usually the one with successful games....don't provide numbers either, but no one is listening to, much less parroting their hyperbole as absolute fact.

[Ashlen]

Razzer, your falling for corporate BS, these companies who are pushing this are making billions in profit yearly. All these companies want is more money, if they get MT's whats next it's not like they will stop pushing.

How much profit is enough before trying to squeeze more is too much?

[Razzer]

Corporate BS involving entirely optional cosmetic add-on purchases? You guys act like these mean greedy corporations are forcing people to buy a damn outfit for their pirates or whatever. They aren’t!

[Rachel_Alucard]

@Razzer

Here's your evidence, https://i.redd.it/un276d3vh... this is data taken from ycharts directly and compiled in a simple to read graph. Back in June through Sept, 2008 was the highest amount EA have spent on development since that point at 372 million.From Sept 30th to Dec 31st 2017 they've spent 329 million. Since 2012 the amount they've spent has been hovering around 252 million to 300 million.

[Razzer]

Uh....that is not proof. It is an image of a line from no source.

Here:
https://www.polygon.com/201...
https://kotaku.com/how-much...
https://meckronos.wordpress...

[Rachel_Alucard]

@razzer

Did you really just ignore my comment and just glossed over the graph? Oh yeah you didn't believe anyone making these claims and now that I've given physical proof you're trying to save face. Also using Polygon and Kotaku as "proof" is like reading tabloid magazines and believing it. The games media will never publish the truth because it hurts them since it affects publishers who pay these websites review copies and many other expenses. Anyway since you can't read here is the data that graph is taken from https://ycharts.com/compani... note the 2008 cost vs the 2017 costs

[Razzer]

It is a chart for one company, not the industry. And even for EA, you cannot draw any conclusions without looking at the quantity and type of games produced and what they cost.

Believe what you want.

[Rachel_Alucard]

@razzer

One look at the benchmarks for each major gaming company sitting to the right side of the page says all there needs to be said. All of them have the same type of statistics in regards to development costs. You can sit there with your ears plugged refusing to see the truth laid before you all you want because at this point it's not a "Belief" its a fact. Why people like you continue to stay closeted and close minded is beyond me, but I'm done. Stay ig'nant.

[Razzer]

Keep pretending those numbers mean something without context. R&D is about as broad as you can get in a mega-corporation. Your ignorance is bragging you've shown something when you havent at all. The price of everything from a loaf of bread to gasoline have risen in 10 years, but somehow economic geniuses like yourself have convinced yourselves that video games are immune. Why? Cuz you don't like stupid optional cosmetic items for sale in games? Ignorant? No. That is moronic.

[Goldby]

@Razzer

"Corporate BS involving entirely optional cosmetic add-on purchases? You guys act like these mean greedy corporations are forcing people to buy a damn outfit for their pirates or whatever. They aren’t!"

Until they start doing things like Overwatch does, Release a skin during special events that unless you have stock piles points will be unavailable without purchasing it

[zerocarnage]

I don't think there will be backlash, not if it's cosmetics, makes no sense to fight a games developer/publisher unless it's bad rolls with tons of duplicates and it's all affecting the game play..

[343_Guilty_Spark]

@Christopher can you provide actual numbers? Where is your source?

[maybelovehate]

That is total BS though. Not all games are the same. Games that have big server farms and steady streams of content cost a lot more money to maintain than a game you spend 20 hours on and never play again.

[rainslacker]

Which is why it makes sense for online games to offer up such things, but MT are being applied across the board. The recent outcry for SW:BF that started all this recent talk though didn't have huge server farms to run the game. Believe it or not, it doesn't take huge server farms to run most online games....particularly those that run off P2P networks. All you really need is the matchmaking server, and possibly a database to keep stats. It requires resources, but not a lot, and would be built into the budget of the game. SoT obviously will require more servers due to it being more like an MMO, and AFAIK it doesn't run on P2P but a dedicated server, so it makes sense here.

That doesn't mean that Rare is showing how to do them right....or at least going by the articles premise, that they're suddenly the first or most prominent to do them right. I feel in this case, they are doing it about as right as can be for anyone who isn't hell-bent on there being no MT though.

[Markusb33]

Exactly people who endorse this crap are shills and corp slaves. Pathetic making excuses for these companies. You owe a company nothing. When ms goes full on games as a service only. I hope everyone who defended this is upset and Pissed off. It's people like you allowing these practices that let companies keep crossing the line again and again.

[Tedakin]

They are optional. If you can't control yourself and pay for them that's on you. Nothing in SOT's MTs affects progression or gameplay.

[NotoriousWhiz]

Would you feel better about Sea of Thieves if instead of "micro transactions", they had paid cosmetic DLC like almost every AAA game that gets released these days?

[Garethvk]

If more people realized they are supposed to be voluntary enhancements vs pay to win it would be a better gaming universe.

[TGG_overlord]

This is at least a much better option for microtransactions I have to say, and I'm NOT a huge fan of microtransactions.

[Poli_Games]

I’m not a fan of them myself. I just think neither side can or should have it 100% their way

[opinionated]

I think MKX is going the right way about it. You play the game to earn coins that unlock boxes. Or you spend 20 bucks to unlock everything in the krypt. It’s a win win for everyone. I’ll continue earning free loot boxes with minimal effort by playing the game while the delusional cry babies have the option to unlock all of the content for 50 bucks or whatever.

These idiots would rather pay for these things straight up instead of getting free loot boxes because “it’s fair” and “not gambling”. Still, that’s better than the really dumb and unrealistic people with the “MTs need to disappear and they need to give it for free” shtick. I can get 4 or 5 cod loot boxes in an hour. Doing simple things like “get 35 kills” lol. This whole “controversy” is fake bull crap.

MTs are literally shortcuts for the lazy. Thats it. That’s what I don’t understand about the haters concerning themselves about them. Why do they care if somebody buys loot boxes? Mind your own business lol.

[rainslacker]

I'm not one who is against MT. I am usually either for or against, or at least accepting of them in particular instances based on how they're implemented in said game.

Too many people I feel are hard line that they can't exist at all without them being upset about them, or basing their buying decision on it. I feel it's always best to look at how it would affect the actual experience you get based on what you spend for the game itself. If a $60 game experience is somehow lessened through the MT implementation then maybe reconsider if you want to buy the game at $60. If the experience isn't affected by it, then it shouldn't really be a consideration. To me, any cosmetic MT doesn't really affect the experience of a $60 game, so I'm not going to rail against them.

[PhoenixUp]

It’s impossible for any full priced to retail game to do microtransactions right

The best way Rare could’ve done microtransactions is to not do them at all.

[Jinger]

I'd rather have 100% optional and only cosmetic item MT's with free DLC

Vs.

Not having MT's and having to pay $20-$40 for a season pass.

All the MT items are still obtainable by playing the game. You just have the option to buy them if you want. And it's only cosmetic items so who cares. I'll take the free content over a season pass any day

[Legacy212]

Omg thank you!!!! It's like people completely forgot almost every multiplayer game use to have season passes that would seriously fracture the user base! I would rather have cosmetic microtransactions that I don't have to pay a dime for and get free content updates then be forced to buy a season pass in order to continue to play with my friends who bought a season pass. That's why I give games a pass. Now when you have a season pass AND microtransactions that's where I see a big problem and a company just being way too damn greedy, I'm looking at you Activision.

[corroios]

Only free to play games should have microtransaction.

[Yohshida]

what about games that expand in content you dont have to pay for?

[Legacy212]

Kids these days want everything for free lol they can go back to the days where they had to buy map packs that they couldn't use if their friends also didn't have the map pack.

[corroios]

DLC? if done right its ok. But cosmetic crap used to be free with the game. Not payed. The game isnt free.

[Yohshida]

Yep and additional content you get for free still costs the devs money. Do you think they make it in their free time?

[Goldby]

@Videogamelab

They make more than enough money off of the initial sale of the game, plus if its a multiplayer game, there will constantly be people purchasing it when the price is right for them = more money coming in.

Maybe the Mt are in there to cover the cost of having the game on Gamepass

[Yohshida]

That could be one reason yep. But when you see that Activisionand EA make most of their money through MTs it makes you think. No wonder everyone wants to go with it. Heck, Sony does the same thing with Uncharted. Those are just cosmetics aswell, no problems with that.

[DreadGara]

I have this feeling Sea of Theives will be free to play later on Live store.

[iofhua]

Rare obviously isn't the same company that made Perfect Dark all those years ago.

It's something sad to see.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed.

Those key members are long gone.

[bluefox755]

Microtransactions on a $60 game is never "right".

[Brian7655492]

Why not, should we ask you to work for free once you release a project but are continuing to work on it? Some don't seem to have a problem with maps and other dlc content coming post launch of other online titles. Put the word microtransactions out there instead of dlc or season passes or MMO monthly fees and now it's taboo. Ridiculous. Do people not buy optional themes/skins and other cosmetic items for their game consoles? After all you payed more than $60 for your game console. Why is that "right" to charge you for that Halo theme or Gears of War theme for you console screensaver but not a pet or a pirate hat?

[Rachel_Alucard]

You're arguing like the devs are paid from MTs when the publisher is the one getting all the profits. The only thing the publisher does is pay the dev to keep working while they rake in the dough.

[Atanasrikard]

@Rachel

So the publisher is supposed to pay for the devs to keep working but aren't supposed to be paid for delivering the content that the devs are creating? Are you ACTUALLY serious or is this one of those, sarcasm things that people have a hard time seeing because these are words on a page.

[Legacy212]

@unreal please provide me with one developer that offers free content updates that don't have loot boxes or microtransactions and I don't mean here's free cosmetic dlc every now and then or 1 free mission u get for pre ordering the game. I'm talking about a multiplayer game that keeps providing free maps and game modes etc like overwatch titanfall or halo. Loyalty to the fans isn't working for free you guys are waaaaaay to entitled.

[UnHoly_One]

@ Rachel_Alucard you have to joking.

Yeah the money goes to the publisher. And the publisher pays the developers.

What do you think happens if the publisher stops making money?

Let’s frame this a different way.

Let’s assume for a minute you work at Gamestop.

People come in, and buy games, and the money all goes to Gamestop.

Gamestop pays you.

What happens if Gamestop no longer makes any money?

[Blastoise]

"please provide me with one developer that offers free content updates that don't have loot boxes or microtransactions"

Nintendo?

[Legacy212]

@blastoise
What game for Nintendo? Last I checked Zelda has a season pass

[Goldby]

@legacy

Gran Turismo Sport is developed by PD and is offering g not only new paint jobs and rims for free each week, but also adds new cars and tracks for free.

And there's no MT in the game.

And it's online focused multiplayer.

[Rachel_Alucard]

@Atanasrikard

You guys are pushing this narrative that the devs have no money and they NEED to do this to feed their family when what would normally happen is they would just move on to a new project instead of sitting down on one project funneling money to the publisher.

@Unholy_One
Nobody was arguing against the nature of the system. The publisher will make money off one game until interest drains. Even if this wasn't there (which it wasn't until a few years back) they would just move on to a new game rather then pumping out low effort content with their skeleton crew.

[Atanasrikard]

$60 is the cost to develop the game. Microtransactions are the cost to provide continuous support to the game after release.

[Ricegum]

How come other developers do it for free then? What about loyalty to the fans that have spent the $60?

[Atanasrikard]

Who and what have they released for free? Loyalty to the fans? They received the game that the developers created for that $60. Do you understand the concept of getting paid for the work you do? Or do you think people should work for free?

[rainslacker]

So what about games that have MT and don't get any support other than more MT after release?

There are a lot of different implementations for MT. While some times they help support the game after release, and some pubs/devs offer up copious content with that revenue gain, other games just use it for added revenue stream with little to no support afterwards.

It's hard to really come to a beneficial way for both customers and publishers to benefit from MT when people focus in on the one particular instance, and extrapolate all instances to be like that.

[Atanasrikard]

@rainslacker

And do you have to purchase those MT's? They are still supporting the game. Again, everything that they are putting in after release is up for being monetized in some fashion. You shouldn't expect any development beyond release to be free of charge.

Bottom line is, nobody is forcing you to buy anything. You can continue to enjoy what the developers released for the original price and nothing is being taken from you.

[Kribwalker]

$50 season passes on a $60 game is never “right”

[Christopher]

Wait, who has a $50 season pass on a $60 game? Most expensive I've seen is $30 and most tend to be $20.

As to which is right, they're just different, IMHO. Sea of Thieves looks like a game that isn't going to push major updates in the form of world-changing elements or new storylines (it doesn't really have one) like an MMO or the like. I think the cosmetics works fine for it. But, for a game where each DLC adds major world updates or new gameplay elements and the cosmetics are a part of the game gear and not just for looks, DLC tends to work well as long as the developer doesn't cut off old content from new players or separate the DLC haves from the have-nots.

There is no single, perfect solution. It really depends on the content of the game and how they design the updates to affect everyone and the game world. If every game had just cosmetic MTs, then people would be focused on just a handful of games that provided the best cosmetics because those would be the only ones that people supported enough to keep them going while all the others would become Battleborn.

[Kribwalker]

@Christopher

Cod WW2 season pass
https://store.playstation.c...

If it’s a multiplayer game and MTs mean it doesn’t separate the player base from new levels etc then i’d say it’s great. In a single player game not as much

[Yohshida]

So it would be better to pay for the season pass?

[Fishy Fingers]

Isn’t more or less how some of other big name games handle them? Including the ones no one complains about.

[Enjoigamin]

Every day just a little closer gonna be an amazing game!!!

[InTheZoneAC]

I think Overwatch should be the cutoff point, anything beyond that is absolutely petty. Games that don't have MT do it right. MP focused games like Monster Hunter World have done it best so far.

[Atanasrikard]

Doesn't Overwatch have lootboxes?

[InTheZoneAC]

yes...

Overwatch has free updates/dlc with cosmetics earned through loot boxes. And for whatever reason you feel the need to, you can spend money on the exact loot box. That is why I said what I said.

[Atanasrikard]

Correct me if I am wrong, but when you get a loot box, isn't it a random item that you receive or do you get exactly what it is you want from that box? I think the difference we are looking at here is you can buy exactly what you are looking for instead of buying a lootbox and hoping you get the item you want.

[TheOttomatic91]

Wut?

[zaherdab]

The game isn't even out yet...

[ILostMyMind]

Could it have been worse? Yes. It does not mean that MT was done the right way. The right way is not to have MT.

[Atanasrikard]

And again I'll say, you expect the developers to work for free?

[ILostMyMind]

I didn't know that SoT was f2p.

But just to be clear, if a game has cosmetic microtransactions, it doesn't matter. What I disagree with here is the insistence of some websites in trying to convince evereone that this model of MT is good thing, and even prises the company (in this case Microsoft) by doing so.

[Artemidorus]

I'm not paying extra to play a game.

It should be like the older days. Pure choice that didn't effect the game.

[RamRod88]

What about games that get continued support after release with free content? How should the developers be supported? That is why this is the best way of doing it. The game continues to receive free content updates and offers optional cosmetic microtransactions that don't effect gameplay. No loot boxes either.
Remember when games released and there was no support after? I certainly do.

[Goldby]

You mean like Gran Turismo Sport?

Its an online heavy game, continued support, new content via cars, paint jobs, tracks and yet there isn't a single MT in the game.

Shocking I know

[InTheZoneAC]

activision-blizzard made around $3 billion in game sales in 2017, MTs made up over $4 billion. I don't know how else to say that these games don't need MT, they're only there to maximize profits, it's common sense at this point. Any justification of needing excessive MTs for online P2P games is just you or others being conditioned sheep.

[Artemidorus]

Yes and I remember the days you also had support free of charge with the odd DLC not effecting gameplay, just choice if you wanted something a little extra.

These greedy companies use the poor excuse larger budgets are required because they know the gamer will keep paying more and more to cheat, gamble or gain something all for a fee.

You use to have people who enjoyed providing games and earned money to provide more now it's a full blown corporate business with a generation of gamers who buy into everything or anything.

[RamRod88]

I'm not saying a support microtransactions as a whole because I don't. There are certain types I'm okay with like the ones in Sea of Thieves. There are others I will never support like Battlefront 2. At the end of the day I have never paid 1 penny for loot boxs or microtransactions because I actually have self control with my purchases.

If a developers can release a game like GTS with constant updates and content, free of microtransactions, more power to them. That is wonderful. Problem is, vast majority of games won't without at least having DLC, a season pass, or some form of microtransactions if the game plans to have content support after release.

[Atanasrikard]

@Goldby

You mean that game that was so lacking in content there would have been a riot if they tried to make you pay for anything that they released? They have certainly pulled the wool over your eyes.

[Goldby]

@Atanasrikard
There wasn't anything lacking at release. did it include everything that previous games did no, but it offered just as much if not more options because of the included Sport mode with the FIA partnership.

Its still the better race sim on consoles compared to the Xbox counterpart Forza Motor Sport 7.
Sold more, has more support "for the games" by not charging for cars like Forza is. a more streamlined Matchmaking system for competitive online races and actual punishment for driving like a maniac in game

[RamRod88]

Sure, GTS has had more support post-launch but Forza 7 had an overwhelming amount of content at launch compared to GTS. The number of cars in Forza to GTS is still heavily in Forza's favor and likely will not change.

[D3athc3ll]

I'm not against MT's if it is only like clothes or skins etc. As long as it doesn't give you and edge like in Battlefront 2 i'm fine with it. Don't give people willing to spend money or having lots of it an advantage in a game, they already got it in life ffs.

[Scatpants]

So then they don't do them at all because that's the right way.

[Father__Merrin]

Customer. I sati on unlocks is perfectly fine. Its when you can make your char stronger by paying even worse via loot boxes

[Cuzzo63]

Borderlands 3 cant come quick enough... Don't know why that came up...
I kno its off topic

[DialgaMarine]

Sounds similar to what Uncharted 4 has: mostly cosmetic items that can all be earned through gameplay and bought with in game currency. Not a bad system at all.

[AizenSosuke]

Difference is SP focused game, and can be played offline, while Sea of thieves you can't

[obidanshinobi]

Microtransactions suck period.

But at least SoT hasn't been designed from the ground up to milk you for extra cash like these following games have - Star Wars BF2, NFS Payback, Fortnite (base game), Assassins Creed Origins, COD WW2, Shadow of War, Destiny 2, Fifa 18, Madden 18 and more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

[SirBillyBones]

'How to Do Microtransactions Right', if we're talking about full priced games then that's a contradiction in terms.

[PrinterMan]

I think Overwatch got loot boxes right. Don't care about the skins for the player don't buy them. You may win them and you may not but if you don't care it costs you nothing. Nothing in the loot box is beneficial to game play or adds new challenges to the game. Sorry but MS / Rare aren't first.

[Vasto]

Rare knows what they are doing.

[Smitty2020]

Buy a 60 pound game with no mt so that the developer gets support and we get a full game and if they want extra money bring out an dlc so it’s a win win for both parties thats how I want it too be end of story

[dennigo]

this game isn't out, and you're already saying they do it right.....
the world these days is full of idiots

[Markusb33]

Sycophants and hypocrites all over the place, the only right way to do microtranactions is disabled them permanently. People supporting this are shills and pussys.

[opinionated]

Damn at least add a summary for those that don’t want to watch the stupid video lol. What did sea of thieves do that’s so different? Can somebody that watch the video explain?

[CrimsonWing69]

Microtransactions right, eh? Wouldn't that be NO micro transactions at all?

I mean the industry makes billions off them, sure... but they act like games can't survive without them, have they forgotten oh, i dunno, every generation since this one?

[opinionated]

You don’t get into business to survive. Yeah sure you made billions but you could struggle if you really wanted to lol. It makes no sense bro.

[drunkenspy007]

there's no such thing as microtransactions done right. If it's something that should be part of the game, it should be included with initial purchase. Stupid people will continue to pay though, because they think that virtual hat on their toon makes them important in some way.

[Ryuujinjakka]

Why wait 3 months then?

[senorfartcushion]

In three years time we'll be reading

"X-game does shows the industry how to do loot boxes right."

Companies make concepts more taxing, they don't improve the old concepts that didn't work.

Loot Boxes have made microtransactions feel better simply because we can see what we're buying. But seeing is not enough. Microtransactions in a $60 game is not right and they have no excuse for having them in.

[wheresmymonkey]

Here's how to do microtransactions right. Only put them in free to play games!

[AizenSosuke]

It either has to be F2P or no MTs.

[Kribwalker]

so then F2P or no DLC? Because in this games case, instead of DLC that separates the player groups to haves and haves nots, they have optional MTs. So instead of spending $50 on a season pass, you get to choose if you want to buy optional MTs and free expansions

[edeprez]

Those aren't the only two options.

[Kribwalker]

@edeprez

of course there’s other options. There’s options like UC4 and Destiny 2, where they have micro transactions and paid DLC,
or there is the option of a subscription to the game a la WOW, but that also had paid expansions.
Or they could have released a incomplete game like GTsport and slowly finish it with the content that should have been included at the start.
Or they could release the game, move on from it to another game and not release content anymore?

If you ask me, optional cosmetic MTs for free content is the best choice

[StormSailor]

A game that should be free to play no form of microtransaction will be correct. This shit must end and the gaming journalists will not help us.

[MaxiPower90]

gears of war is littered with them..

[lellkay]

CD projekt red shows how to do Microtransactions right in a full priced retail game.

As in, you don't. You sell a complete game, then you sell worthwhile expansions for said game.

No MT's, no lootboxes, no bullshit.

[paintedgamer1984]

Not really sure how "Rare Shows the Industry How to Do Microtransactions Right" when the game hasnt even released yet. Yall xbox dudes are going to jinx youre possibly amazing game by crowning achievments that arent mutually agreed upon. As of now, the player base seems to be split between most amazing game ever with great graphics and gameplay VS weak fighting mechanics, empty worlds, and boring fetch quests with no real reward for doing so.

[Markusb33]

Sycophants and hypocrites all the people who accept this. This is why MS will be a service only in the future, ripping everyone off and it will be the fault of these sheep and corp slaves. Excuses excuses you had 3 years of wait till e3 and getting nothing but controllers.

[quenomamen]

Yea no, the way to do it right is to leave them the eff out of a $60 game.

[jznrpg]

MT done right is no MTs at all , but unfortunately that isn’t reality. It’s too early to say what Rares take on MTs are until this game has been around for sometime because they can add different models to it at anytime. Of course they are going to say good things now because of the backlash but what really happens wont be known for some time, MS may make them add some model they don’t like, hopefully that’s not the case for people into the game but I wouldn’t be surprised if something not as palatable was added into the game later into its life

[hit17388]

There shouldn't be any microtransactions on a 60$game period. What happened to unlocking stuff while playing the game. I don't mind paying for expansions.

[BadElf]

But the base $60 game is VERY bare bones. ooooof.

[Gunstar75]

Gimme gimme gimme...
We can't expect developers to create a game; a task more expensive than ever, and then expect them to keep delivering content for free.
This isn't a single player one-off experience. This is a massive open world that will continue to evolve and grow. Do I think I should get that for free? NO!

[happy2b]

Reasons why this is stupid and you shouldn't support this
-Content like this always used to free in the past.
-Games aren't getting more expensive they're getting cheaper to make it's developers who keep increasing the price with pricey advertising campaigns and paying for big Hollywood names to appear when they're not needed.
-Server costs and minimal to next to nothin for multiplayer games hell sometimes they don't even use servers so how does that excuse them for increasing the price.
-They don't have to pay taxes they use off shore schemes to avoid tax.
-They don't pay royalties to voice actors and other artists like films have to.
-EA has even said that removing DLC an micro transaction didn't hurt their profit which raises the question why is it there.

Games are a business and if they can't survive and make money without micro-transactions in a full priced game then they shouldn't be doing business. Hell the extra profit doesn't go to the developers or the artists or the voice actors it goes to the investors the business fellas. The dlc and other content has already been made a long time ago

And lastly it's NOT UR PROBLEM to worry about weather or not they make money, YOUR THE CONSUMER and as consumers your supposed to worry about getting the best deal and believe or not micro-transactions are a bad deal for YOU AS THE CONSUMER. So ask for a better deal stop sucking up to big corporations cause they don't see u as people they see u as a profit margin.

[MongooZ]

Skipping it unfortunately now that I know there will be MTs. I’m very fine with Monster Hunter and Xenoblades 2 for quite a while I guess. I’m not encouraging this kind of greediness anymore it’s enough.

Now we have a responsibility of teaching the young ones about those practices. My 10 yo son is now aware why we skip such game and not this one. I do explain him and I am surprised how his friends are aware when he talks to them about those reasons.

They’re not regretting not buying let’s say... Destiny 2 for example :P

[OGzeus]

Buying cosmetics is fine for a $60 game or F2p, there are people that like to buy cosmetics and can do with their money as they wish, as long as microtransactions don't give an edge to anyone it's all good. Personally, I would never buy cosmetics on a $60 game, on a free to play a game I might. Right now I like what Epic games are doing with the Fortnite season pass and its something that I feel I'm getting value for my money.
I like that Microsoft and Rare are focused on the game and not so much on microtransaction and how much they can squeeze out of gamers, this game needs plenty of content and I hope it's there on launch and the game succeeds because I had fun playing the beta, that said, I hope they don't make me buy a parrot because I want one, it would be cool if it repeated once in a while something players said often through their mics.

[BuildTheWall]

I've got an idea for studios that are relying on microteansactions. Give all money make from microtransactions to StJude children's hospital.

[Goldby]

I would rather it go towards addiction and mental health.

[SCW1982]

This article is gonna go over real well LOL!

[Profchaos]

I miss legit content packs like gta4 tbogt or tlad. Something went wrong over time those content packs added 24 hours plus and practically new games for the cost of a few loot boxes in newer titles

[bolimekurac]

xbox one s and x both getting 1440p support, xbox one s can now do 1440p
https://wccftech.com/xbox-o...

[Razzer]

which has nothing to do with the article at all

[memots]

The bar as been set pretty low after the stepping over the line of Starwars .. Micro transaction is nothing to be praised for, remove your fanboy google and see it for what it is

[ElementX]

The content is a way to provide more income for further game development. Cosmetics don't really matter to gameplay. You are getting an entire game with your purchase. I don't see why people are complaining. Complain about loot boxes, if anything. Here you can buy exactly what you want if you desire. Nobody complains when Sony asks for money for cosmetics. Almost every Japanese developed game has micromachines but people still buy the games

[ShadowWolf712]

Commenting just to say:

-The idea that games without MTs would be $80 or more is a myth, and the fact that so many SP games without them, even those that offer entirely free content, are very, very successful and continue to be made is proof enough of that. The fact that game development costs have also dropped, as well as the fact that the Franchises which have this the most are the big annual franchises or IPs that are guaranteed to sell should clue you in a bit on this too; it's a scam for maximum monetization.

-No, there is no right way to do MT's in a $60 game. You wanna include cosmetics and find a way to incentivize people to play? Mission lock them. Have people find them like treasure, via exploration. Allow them to be bought with in-game currency. Many ways to do this. And no, I'm not fond of Naughty Dog doing this in the Uncharted and TLOU MP modes either, "non-invasive" as they may be.

-This idea people have that people play SP games, beat them in a few hours, then move on and never look back... where did this come from? Seriously. Almost every single game that people get nostalgic for, that people go back and play again and again, that folks will wax poetic about... they were narrative-driven, Single Player games. I still go back and play my SP games regularly, and memories from those I've played in the past are with me to this day. I don't have such memories like these from MMO or "Service-Based Gaming", but even if I did... well, I could never pick them back up and play them again. They'll either have shut down completely, or have been updated and changed to be completely different from the game I played so long ago. (See: the loud complaints of WoW players). No idea why people seem to think SP games are all one-and-dones, or try to stand by this claim so strongly, even in threads not related to the topic.

-I think a lot of people here are confusing Expansions and Expansion Packs with Season Passes. Multiplayer/Online games typically didn't have Season Passes back in the day, but Expansion.Map packs that were about $10-$20 a pop. The concept of the $35 Season Pass is actually more recent, and sadly has gotten so ridiculous that some Publishers don't even make the expansions available for individual sale, or charge almost as much as the Season Pass for each just to incentivize that purchase. This too, however, is a completely unnecessary practice. To declare that you -have- to have one or the other in every scenario, however, is ridiculous.

-And finally, these companies literally pay other companies, market research teams, even social scientists, to find ways for them to try to make all forms of Microtransactions as "desirable" as possible. And yes, it does indeed turn out that people can even be psychologically manipulated to shell out to buy cosmetics. "What's that? Your friends all bought this new hat? Well shucks, you can't be without that $5 hat, can you? You can't be without this $10 parrot, can you? LOOK< that ship there has this neat new flag design, only $8, you want that, right? You don't wanna be the only guy out there with NOOB GEAR... right?" You see where the problem lies?

[Razzer]

"In an industry where consumers have traditionally paid the same price for a product no matter how much that product cost to create, the publishers have traditionally eaten the margin. Those days are over. The bottom line of the state of AAA is that the cost to produce AAA content is soon to be coming out of your pocket. Get ready."
https://www.polygon.com/201...

"The fact is, games are actually cheaper than they were before and yet they cost quite a lot more to make. That's why we have DLC and micro-transactions. To balloon the cost of an under-priced $60 game closer to the inflation-adjusted $100 it should be at."
https://www.forbes.com/site...

Don't say it is a "myth". It isn't. This idea that gamers are entitled to pay only $60 for AAA game and the publisher has no right to either raise that price or find alternate means of bringing in revenue.....that is the myth. Rage against it all you want. Make up whatever nonsense about being "psychologically manipulated" into buying a hat. Pretend that development costs haven't risen dramatically the last 10 years. Whatever nonsense you guys dream up to make you feel like you are being cheated....time to get over it. If you had your way then you would create another crash in the industry. All because you didn't like the idea of someone being able to buy some cosmetic items in-game. So you would rather pay $80-100? I sure as hell don't. That's why I'm fine with giving folks the OPTION of buying that damn hat.

[ShadowWolf712]

It's a myth. lol

Costs are down. Polygon's repeating corporate propaganda and trying to hide it behind a lack of understanding of basic economics.

The costs of game development have dropped over the last ten years. Budgets, however, have ballooned due to MARKETING.

Stop being a sheep.

[ShadowWolf712]

By the way, if you seriously think thy're making enough via fake hats to cover the costs of losing 50% of their development cost per sale... lol

Also funny: How much money did Witcher 3 lose? After all, it had multiple DLC expansions... for free. And was only $60 at launch. How much did Horizon lose for Sony? After all, it cost a whopping $51 million to make and they'd have to sell at least $850,000 copies to make that ba-oh. Wait. They made that back inside the first week.

Come off it, my guy.

[Razzer]

Costs have dropped, huh? You have something to back that up? I have no idea how much HZD made. Neither do you. I can guess Witcher 3 made a ton cuz it sold over 10 million copies. Those two games are the exception, not the rule. And to hell with that sheep bullshit. I'm talking facts. You don't like them and now you are calling me shit like that? Fine. Believe what you want. Unless you can come back with something to back up your claims.....just STFU.

[Goldby]

@shadowwolf.

The expansion s werent free for witcher 3. I have no clue how u can think k it was when. They said themselves that they wouldn't charge for addition things unless it W's warranted like the way expansions which each cost like 20$

[christocolus]

And i'll be there day one. Amazing and fun online multiplayer game.

[KryptonKronos]

How to do microtransactions right? When has it ever been right to put them in a full priced game and for go base content where it should all be there in the first place without you paying extra for it. What a load of horse cock, nothings right about this.

[Tross]

There are two ways for MTs to be done right. 1. For the game itself to be free. 2. For the game to not have MTs.

[Dragonscale]

Great loot boxes, shame about the game.

[Azure142]

I think it's okay for Sea of Thieves to have micro-transactions since a majority of people will be getting the game for 10$ a month through xbox gamepass anyway. When you think about it that way, its 20$ for the two months you care about the game with optional 5$ micro-transactions for those who want them. I dont see a big issue when there's alot of value there already.

[tontontam0]

Lol, desperate marketing strategy using EA's debacle to hype your game.