Discussion: Microtransactions in Games

[POOHEAD189]

This is a thread discussing your opinion on microtransactions. Whether they are fair, ethical, if they ruin a game, what you believe the future of them in games will be like. Your overall opinions. Is it ok in some games because they are free like Overwatch, yet terrible in some games like Star Wars Battlefront II?

Give us your thoughts.

[VKAllen]

I'll just post what I wrote before...

microtransactions
should COMPLEMENT a game
not COMPLETE it

[Heat]

Also posting what I pretty much said in the Discord...

I highly dislike it as a trend but understand its become the norm. Microtransactions should never provide an unfair gameplay advantage. If their purpose is just cosmetic stuff (like in Battlefield 1), then it's tolerable at least. Games should not be built around them, like what the NBA 2k series has become with all the VC bullshit.

[NuttsnBolts]

Microtransactions covers a lot of things, but there are some times when I think it's alright and other times when I don't feel that it's a good move at all. The concerning variations are things that affect gameplay, or the gaming experience. Items that can only be purchased from a shop, special characters, and even pay for convenience—XP boost examples, are things that should be avoided. What they do is create an atmosphere where you feel like your experience is hampered because you haven't donated enough money into the game.

As a general rule of thumb, if it's made before the release date, it should be available at purchase.

This changes however with DLC additions like extra missions and additional content purchased after the release date. The most common that people know of are skins. This is because during game development the graphic artists are usually the first to finish their tasks with programmers working up to the release date. A skin pack can be developed during that time and released after for an additional price. Since it does not affect the base gaming experience, charging for that if perfectly fine.

All in all I don't think it's right for companies to charge for segments of a product, but I believe with the current market they can and should be allowed under certain situations. What EA did however is the most extreme of the bad side to this debate, whereas Borderlands 2 with their Holiday Season micro campaings and head packs is different.

I think this sums up what everyone experiences:

[AlteredTundra]

Certain games tend to have these kinds of systems to where real life cash give you in-game currency and that it's the focus of the game. As in, you wouldn't be able to play the game effectively if you didn't have copious amounts of the green stuff. Now, as someone who has played his fair share of free-to-play games that utilize microtransactions(Naruto Online, Mobius: Final Fantasy, and Forge of Empires, just to name of few), I can say with absolute certainty that each treats this system different.

Let me start with the worst of the bunch: Naruto Online.

This is a game that is rigged from the start. Be it from the pseudo-gambling "treasures" within this game or refinement runes that are needed to up certain attributes, this is a game that hardly offers anything useful in the long term for those who prefer the free-to-play(using time to increase your overall stats) as compared to going the pay-to-win route, which, as you could probably guess, is using your money to shortcut your way through it. Even when you do use irl cash, you hardly get anything unless you throw in thousands of dollars.

And this is all because the company that runs the NA servers, Oasis, are pretty much on the same level as EA: all they care about is the cash-money. The players will doubtless express their concerns about how they [Oasis] run the game, but at the end of the day, they don't care. Even after being outed by one of their former admins, they continue to utilize the same practices. PEople still play the game because it's quite the addiction, but less and fewer people go for it in the long-run.

Forge of Empires, however, isn't so shady. Same with Mobius. Both games, though they utilize microtransactions, offer plenty of events and chances for the free-to-play players a chance to grow in power with the other players in the game who use the cashmoney to get ahead.

And now we arrive at my point.

I don't like microtransactions and I loathe how they hinder the jinder in all of us. I hate how we won't be able to fully enjoy the game because I lack the irl cash to give me the in-game currency, but I can also see how it's necessary for certain games. At the end of the day, it really is about how each gaming company manages the game. If they offer you chances to get the IGC without having to use the change out of your wallet, then it's not so bad, but if it's utilized in games you've already paid full-price for, then that makes you the lowest of the low.

[Monacho]

I think it's understandable if it's purely aesthetic stuff, an item that doesn't affect gameplay drastically, or DLC-packs that don't impact the basegame.

The item thing happens too often when the developers either decide to make a weapon that could make going through the game an absolute breeze, or with AC:Black Flag's case were you could be entirely OP in multiplayer based off them alone. I wouldn't count GTA V's shark cards along the lines of this, as there are few things you can really buy (i.e tanks, but still easily attainable by those that don't get cards) that would increase your odds.

By DLCs I mean things such as map packs or bonus missions that aren't exactly like an extension of the game, but more-so as if you were playing a side mission.

[AlteredTundra]

@Monacho I don't think I would consider DLC packages part of the trend of microtransaction. In my experience, microtransactions have been utilized for things as simple as items that help you increase your stats. DLC has always seemed like additional portions of the game. Sure, some DLC hasn't always been the greatest for certain games, but to some, it's been worth it.

[skidcrow]

@Monacho I don't think I would consider DLC packages part of the trend of microtransaction. In my experience, microtransactions have been utilized for things as simple as items that help you increase your stats. DLC has always seemed like additional portions of the game. Sure, some DLC hasn't always been the greatest for certain games, but to some, it's been worth it.

@Altered Tundra

I think DLC borders the line of microtransactions when it comes to on-disc DLC, which is completed parts of the game that are locked away from the player from day one, unless they give more money to the developer.

As for microtransactions themselves, I'd like to actually provide an example of them done right. Of course, in an ideal world, they wouldn't exist at all, but having them there in a nonintrusive manner is the lesser of two evils. Say what you want about Ubisoft and Assassin's Creed, but Assassin's Creed: Origins handles microtransactions incredibly well compared to other games. All of the items you can purchase you can also fairly quickly obtain in-game, meaning the microtransactions are just there for lazy gamers who don't want to put in effort. You are never at a disadvantage for not purchasing things, which makes the microtransaction system a glimmering piece of shiny metal in a pile full of turds.

[ArenaSnow]

I could go on about microtransactions and what makes a good one and why, beyond all that, I don't like them because I like to buy games for the sum of their content (ie, the entirety of Diablo 2) and see expansions developed later (Diablo 2 LOD), but I think I will just leave it at this.

--v

I'll just post what I wrote before...

microtransactions
should COMPLEMENT a game
not COMPLETE it

@VKAllen

[Dion]

Microtransactions are here to stay. Financially there's no reason not to use them. It's better to wager that you won't get BF2 levels backlash and earn mad cash.

@Monacho I don't think I would consider DLC packages part of the trend of microtransaction. In my experience, microtransactions have been utilized for things as simple as items that help you increase your stats. DLC has always seemed like additional portions of the game. Sure, some DLC hasn't always been the greatest for certain games, but to some, it's been worth it.

@Altered Tundra

For that argument you need to demarcate what kind of DLC we're even discussing. Taking Sims 2 or so, yeah, those things added a wealth of content, were created after release, and were generally fairly priced. But they don't stack up to modern 'on release' DLC, things that were created before release - I count under that the exclusive bonuses too (buy it at x store and get y).

But per definition it doesn't relate to the topic at hand. Microtransactions are small ingame purchases. A DLC are larger purchases (I mean, I guess horse armor DLC wouldn't exactly be a large purchase, but yknow) that are made off the game, and typically include new content, not unlocks of existing content.

[SleepingSilence]

Lootboxes in a nutshell.

[Silver Carrot]

The worst thing is micro-transactions to buy loot boxes that may or may not contain anything you want. That IS literally gambling.

[ScreenAcne]

I like the idea of loot boxes.

But a lot of companies have basically become, motherfucking, lazier than a vulture in a plague town. They just cut up assests that should by all rights be in the game right off the bat. I mean, motherfucking, overwatching has got me unlocking basic voice lines for characters like I'm trying to talk to them after a break up.

It's tedious and it's cheap. I get it for like certain emotes/skin. I especially get it for seasonal shit, but just make more fucking content man. Don't lock off basic stuff. That's not even touching pay-to-win stuff you get in some other games. Loot boxes would be neat, as an alternative to chests(mechanic content), I think. If you found them in game-and you didn't have to pay for keys and were colelctable/cosmetic content-

I personally like the motherfucking, market place and loot boxes are a way to increase prices of digital items-by actually attaching money to the investment of getting them. Otherwise the steam market would be mostly filled with stuff that rarely go above 30p in value- who allows a kid credit access to steam is asking for trouble.

But, for shit like Xbox where your card is tied to your online account anyway. That's just bait. Some impulse-poor kid going to rack up bills. It reminds me of those costly phone call lines you used to get in,motherfucking, the 90's that you'd find your teenager/child unwittingly racked up to the hundreds.

[ImportantNobody]

Felt compelled to post because of Battlefront 2. Spent 4,000 credits and you only get around 300 something credits on a good game. Got practically nothing of value so I can't even level up my classes who are only level 3, which you'd think I could level up swiftly at lower levels. Got a pose for a character you can see for a split second at the end. Yay! So yeah, I basically deem it impossible to level up without spending loads of cash if it takes this long to get one loot box that doesn't level up any class even once.

Yeah, I'm a little salty right now because this incident is fresh in my memory. Overwatch loot boxes are no problem at all. Never paid any money and have gotten loads of great loot boxes. You could say I just got unlucky in battlefront for only getting the lowest level loot pop out, but I doubt it's just me.

[Tera]

I think microtransactions are bad when the players cannot truly enjoy the game unless they buy them. For example, energy bars system implemented purely to earn money, or power boosts that give players definite superiority against others in pvp.

Other than that, I think microtransactions are actually a good thing to the players and the game itself. First, game developers will have more incentives in maintaining and improving a game with microtransactions, because it still generates money. All players will benefit from the continuous bug-fixing and game content additions. Also, microtransactions keep the game cheaper than if everything is bought in a package. Some players might not want the additional aesthetics or some of the story content, so it will be best sold separately.

In general, I see microtransactions as a price discrimination tool used to target different consumers with different needs. It can become ugly if the game developers did not do their market research to understand their target audiences well.

[Carlyle]

Put simply, I like microtransactions if they add small and meaningless items like cosmetics. I don't like microtansactions when they lock content/make it impossible for someone to play without them (e.g. powerups like XP buffs or microtransaction-specific gear/weapons).

DLC content is a tricky one for me. Sure, I'll buy DLC if its meaningful for the price and has actual content added to the game, but I'm not a fan of burning a whole in my pocket for items/objects/maps/etc I'll probably never use/play or get to use/play.

I miss the golden age of expansion packs. I used to play games like BF1942, Age of Empires, or even games like WoW relentlessly because I saw replayablity simply because the content was numerous and there was much I could do. Now I hardly play through games more than once or I'll get bored because I don't find anything worth my while.

[FantasyChic]

I'm of the belief that microtransactions are fine provided you don't NEED to pay it in order to either 1: Enjoy, 2: Win, or 3: Finish the game. As stated, Overwatch does it nicely, because lootboxes are free with experience and levels, but if you wanted to, you can buy them and it's all purely cosmetic and enjoyable. Nothing that will boost stats.

Granted, I have not played Star Wars Battlefront 2 (and probably won't), but from what I heard, what you get from microtransactions allows you an edge in gameplay, and that's not fair.

I remember playing a game, it was some zombie campaign game (H1Z1 or something along those lines?) I started playing. I didn't buy anything (thank God) but I got gear from some coins they gave me for being a new player. I got some basic gear, loaded up the game, and was shot instantly by another player, who stole all my stuff. Now, had I spent actual money to get this, I would be pissed! And I come to find out that the gear you buy boosts your stats and, of course, if you get guns you are at an advantage like....shooting other players.

So, microtransactions can be good or bad. They shouldn't force you to pay more for something. It's along the same lines as DLC. DLC should be added extra content for enjoyment, you shouldn't NEED the DLC to finish the game.

[Cayden Black]

My personal opinion is that I accept them as a part of the future (and present) of gaming and, heck, I've even bought some for OverWatch. Yet the way EA pushes them in the recent BF2 is poorly done as it adds the idea of a "Pay to Win" scenario. Cosmetics I'm all for, but that is as far as I go with loot boxes.

[Dervish]

If it's 100% cosmetic stuff and the game gives you freebies every now and then like Overwatch, I'm totally okay with it.

Something like Battlefront 2/ Gears of War 4 where it alters in game stats and skills? It's inexcusable. It literally gives people a sense of urgency that they have to buy crates to keep competitive because the grind is excessive and you're trying to keep up with people who have way better stats and equipment than you. In Battlefront, for instance, Heroes vs. Villains is almost unplayable at low levels because cards make a significant difference. When some asshat with a lightsaber can take 40% more damage and has faster cooldowns on all of their abilities, you're often dying way more than you're killing because sometimes it comes down to a matter of hits. Starfighters are similar, especially when you are up against people with much better turning than you and have faster/ more damaging shots. When it's about dog fighting and trying to get behind an enemy, sometimes you only have seconds to inflict damage and if you can't turn as sharply as another player, they're going to get behind you and stay there.

Fortnite is actually okay for me for lootboxes, they all contain stuff that's pretty essential for progression, but the rate you earn them for free is pretty brisk and in gameplay terms, it's all PVE so you're not up against other players (I don't believe the Battle Royale mode has loot systems since it relies on you picking stuff up on the map, so it isn't relevant to my point), and since the game is coop, people with better gear tend to help you out a lot. It still comes down to your skill as a player, and I've still found my gear holding its own despite being several levels lower than the recommended in several instances.

[GreatSalmon]

I think in buying microtransactions we're setting up a precedent for future games that I don't think many of us are going to like.

Don't get me wrong, I think a free game that uses microtransactions as a way to support itself is much better than an annual subscription game like World of Warcraft. But microtransactions are evolving the more we allow them and support them to be seen in games. These micro transactions are never not with the players, even if you don't spend money. They're in the game to get you to gamble, and it'd be crazy for developers then to just to put it in the backseat of the gaming experience. A lot of these microtransactions are aimed at cosmetics, which I've found interesting for a very long time now. If we wanted to have our character look different, in context with something like League of Legends, we could just find a way to put mods into the game. But then no one else gets to see it, and I think this buying of skins and costumes is more fueled by a narcissistic way of wanting people to see us a certain way.

In Hearthstone, there used to be Adventures you could buy. They allowed you to fight a lot of fun bosses and they gave you all the cards from that expansion. Blizzard has discarded that now for a larger focus on card expansions, where you need to buy packs in order to have a chance at getting some fun cards. Now the argument thrown at Battlefront 2 can be thrown at Hearthstone as these purchases give you an edge over other players, but I wanted to use it as an example that this focus on microtransactions is increasing. These expansions still have smaller, free Adventures that come out with it, but card packs are now the sole way of getting new cards.

I think I'm near the end of my microtransactions experience as they've drained so much money out of me. I now more often play games on older consoles just to get away from this, and occasionally buy DLC if it adds real content to a game (Sims 3, Dark Souls, etc). What's really depressing for me is that all the money I've put into microtransactions I could have used to expand my game collection. As a warning from someone whose lived through it for 6 years now, I would say avoid it! It may be exciting to pay for a lootbox and get that legendary skin, but one day you'll look back on these purchases and regret them.