If You Thought Some Developers Aren’t Deliberately Trying To Screw You…

For the past few years there has been a trend in gaming, especially on the mobile market, to try and squeeze pennies out of their consumers any way they can. This has been chased through DLC and inlayed microtransactions. In most cases the content provided for your hard earned dollars is usually supplementary, something extra that adds to the game or personalizes it. In other cases it’s for gated content, or content that accelerates one’s skills or abilities in the game artificially boosting them past non-paying players.

[ZeroSkerbo]

I hate microtransactions. Like I understand why they are needed in some mobile games, but I can't think of one example where a console games actually used them in a non malicious, non pay-to-win fashion. Am I the only one that thinks this type of thing is greedy and unfair to a huge portion of players?

[CloudRap]

not all are pay to win. Some are just meant to entice stupid people to hand over more cash, the Snoop Dogg announcer dlc for ghosts being a prime example.

[DoomeDx]

Some people want to support the company.

Killzone Shadow Fall is doing DLC right. Map packs are free, cosmetic effects cost money. I support companies who do it correctly.

[Palitera]

It is pretty simple. Money comes first of EVERYTHING.

Now, "costumer satisfaction" is just a way to make (guess what!) money. If they can make money WITHOUT consumer satisfaction, they really don't need players to be happy.

Lots of products and franchises are self destructing, but it doesnt matter, as long as it profits a lot. Franchises are really disposable, since they can always hype stupid gamers (the vast majority) and fake-advertise the next record breaking game.

It is pretty simple, but most people just don't realize this. They think companies care about their consumers. No. They care about their money. Only.

[3-4-5]

* Some Dev is always going to be " that guy/ that women", who has to " go there", and take things too far.

* When we don't stand up to that. When we don't speak out, TOGETHER as one, about it, then nothing happens and it continues to happen and spread to other dev's, because they think we are cool with it.

* Dev's listen to fans sometimes, but publishers will only listen to your wallets.

[Blackleg-sanji]

Didn't they take out air drops and refund ppl tho? Media is goinh to run this thing huh...

[Skate-AK]

Airdrops are in. They just changed the way they work. Pretty sure people did get refunds.

[Blackleg-sanji]

Ahh i see well at least they git refunds dont see that...ever lol

[Roccetarius]

Well, companies have been doing this for quite some time now, and it's even poisoning retail games as well. A great example is Dead Space 3 because it was designed with microtransactions in mind.

I don't agree with the way Blizzard handles Heroes of the Storm either. Characters should be available for everyone, but cosmetic changes should be paid for.

[Death]

Games are a business. Either publishers can charge more upfront or we can deal with DLC and Microtransactions. Games have been $59.99 for a very long time now. If memory serves me right, the $59.99 price tag for games started with the N64 almost 20 years ago.

[Kribwalker]

I remember seeing turok on N64 for $120 at Walmart in Canada when it was first released, N64 games were typically expensive, but even before that I made the mistake and bought batman forever for snes for $69.99.... Games have always been expensive in canada, typically been $69.99 since SNES days

[shocked686]

I'm all for the free-to-play model for MMOs with microtransactions for cosmetics. But once I see a pay-to-win microtransaction pop up, it really hurts the game for me. This is ESPECIALLY true with console games. For instance, I'm liking the Dragon Age Inquisition multiplayer, but even in a huge $60 title like this I'm seeing ways to spend more money to win faster. It's just such an obvious, quick and dirty way to make money. It hurts my gamer soul.

[ChouDa]

I understand the business side of it, I do... but if you're building a game and the biz model behind the game is contingent on microtransactions, then maybe you should rethink the game?

That said, freemium comes to mind (Thanks South Park! - so good, by the way), but I'll admit... i spent STUPID MONEY on little pixelated clothing for my Maple Story character.

5 full frames of walking animation... for only $2?! GIMME DAT!

[shocked686]

Yeah those kinds of transactions are fine. Microtransaction has become a dirty word but it totally works and doesn't interfere with the game when it's done right. If you want to pay $10 for a funny hat, go for it and support the free-to-play game.

[gedden7]

These just care about money. They barely care about quality and longevity. Nintendo and some Japanese companies are they only devs who try to give your money's worth for the most part. The sad thing is that these new gamers don't care or are ignorant to these tactics by devs. At one point evolve was suppose to be f2p.. But then 2k switched it the a full priced game. Dut do think 2k ordered the devs to make a full fledged single player game as well as a multiplayer game. Nope, its just tacked on as an after thought discussed with CG. These debs also throw dlc down your throat b4 you even buy the game... Dlc was originally was made available because the time it takes to make games and some content had to be cut to meet a deadline. But then released at a later date. And don't get me started with day one updates and buying fully priced games that aren't completed... Really devs, really...???

[TheZeroReview]

Well put, the shadyness of it all is the worst part imo. You're also totally right about Nintendo and other Japanese companies though. Mario Kart 8's DLC is easily the best $12 I've spent on extra content in a long time, the value is ridiculous.

[Death]

DLC has always been about making more money without raising the price of games. Before we all became connected and had a HDD in our consoles, DLC was not possible. Instead of raising the MSRP of games as budgets blew up, publishers opted for DLC as a way to recoup added costs.

There is no such thing as "Free to Play". It's a different business model that relies on microtransactions to make money. Yes, you can play a portion of the game, but to unlock the full game you are paying.

Here's a question for those that will disagree, how do publishers pay for online servers? Depending on the platform and game, the platform holder may be absorbing the cost and making it up with their subscription fee. For others it is paid with monthly subs, DLC, and Microtransactions. Look at Destiny as an example that is using DLC as a way to keep the game fresh and still make money while adding hours of gameplay. Some games go to far with it, some have an easier time justifying it. It's a formula and balance all publishers need to figure out in order to be successful.

[callumjack]

Life's like a sandwich, the bread always has to come first

[havok2100]

This may be an unpopular perspective, but life is pay-to-win. The expectation that devs and publishers should feel obligated to provide a compelling gaming experience indefinitely after the initial purchase doesn't really make sense. In order to provide incentive for a DLC purchase, there has to be an in game benefit. Most people will not pay for cosmetic options that add nothing to gameplay or character progression.

At this point, mainly due to the ever increasing age of the average gamer, I think the incentives offered through microtransactions are actually intended to be shortcuts for working gamers with families. They're geared toward people who have budgeted a portion of disposable income to gaming, but have limited schedules as opposed to younger or unemployed players who can commit more time to practice and grinding.

If these benefits are exploited by gamers who don't necessary need the advantages, but who simply want and can afford them, that's their prerogative. Like I said, life is pay-to-win. The game space is not immune to that. You can choose not to participate on principle, which only really limits your options as a gamer to experience the content at all. Or you can just not patronize the microtransactions.

I don't get the complaining about what seems to be "fairness" . . . Who says it should be fair. Does it matter if you get owned by a player who puts in 120 hrs a week or a by one who bought his entire kit because he can only play an hour a day? The devs balance the experience as best they can to keep the most people spending money, either on additional content or future releases. That's what keeps them working. Get whatever enjoyment you can, or scratch that itch somewhere else.

[Silly gameAr]

Another one of these huh? I swear people go overboard with certain things.

[Filmgamesetc]

It's good for developers to give gamers that option, especially for busy working professionals who don't have as much time to invest into their games but don't mind "paying" catch up.

[Jimboms]

Very interesting, I do feel like this a lot of the time