Microtransactions and their place in gaming

[Luseth 1,967]

With Dragons dogma and it's reception I thought it may be worth a separate thread?

 

Micro transactions have been around a while with games like Fifa and FUT, in fact from memory Two Worlds 2 had them?

 

They are here to stay but are they being implemented in the right way?

 

I have always been fine with them bringing in cosmetic changes to a game, visuals, the way a character looks. Pay to win is always a no for me.

 

Studios do mention fairly frequently now the financial burden of making big triple A titles and looking at way's to recoup their costs, some have opted for higher game prices but then gamers complain about the high prices (we still yearn for yesteryear when a game cost £40), they bring in cheap simple DLC or in the latest attempt bringing micro transactions into games that maybe do not fully warrant it.

 

So, do they have a place and if so how would you implement them? Or would you prefer that video game prices just go up instead and we keep away from them?

 

To me they are the equivalent of netflix and such bringing in adverts and / or strategic placement of items in films or games that advertise a product to generate additional revenue and generally people have not really been too bothered by these sorts of things.

[phil bottle 9,787]

Plenty of companies still release games on PC for around £35 and without microtransactions. 

 

If people want to pay to win in single player games that's up to them, sad but I don't care to be honest.

 

Pay to win in multiplayer is obviously a massive no no.

 

Paying for skins, again, I don't care.

 

And gating or  deliberately removing game features simply to make money is shitty imo it wasn't always like this, so it kind of tarnishes gaming for me personally.

[J4MES OX4D 10,042]

It's pure greed and nothing else and this is reflected in publishers balance sheets. A game like Dragon's Dogshit 2 does not need any microtransactions especially ones where users have to pay £1.99 to create a new character or start a new game. If they deleted the save file locally then they got banned by Denuvo for 'system tampering'. This is an utterly despicable practice. Games like COD and FIFA also have pay to win elements which are reflected in longstanding concept patents in place to drive people to buying the latest bundles and then shadow-nerfing them before a new one is released to move users to the next.

 

Videogame prices have gone up and the quality has gone down. Some games are even built around post-launch monetisation which is why they release in such a shit show. The likes of Activision and EA don't need to recoup costs when they surpass their development costs within a week and then go on to post revenues in the billions per quarter alone. EA just posted a $5.8bn profit for 2023 and most of that was down to microtransactions. 

 

Baldurs Gate 3 doesn't have microtransactions and it isn't a pile of broken diarrhoea either - one of the most successful games this century. Multi-billionaires Capcom did not need to sink this low especially when they have worked so hard to become re-established in the last 7years. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,063]

I don't mind them much really - you don't have to buy them.

 

I think sometimes gamers aren't able to take a step back and put themselves into the developer/programmer company side of things, just to help give some balance. No doubt about it, its income for a company, but i'd suggest thinking about what its used for. If I had made a great game and there was an outcry to add certain cosmetics or even extra enemies then I'd have to think how do I pay for the devs to make it. Thats just common sense. There is a reason we're seeing not many AAA games being made now and its purely down to cost.

 

People can say 'it wasn't like that back in the day', but we have to be mindful that gamers expectations change and shift over time. Demand for the best graphics, the biggest games, the largest content drops, etc...its relentless and I don't envy any company that makes games these days. Social Media and the way we gorge content is just something that can't be matched in terms of delivery of content in games.

 

I may be widening the discussion but I hope you can understand why I try to take in both sides of the story before thinking immediately from the gamer side that 'they're just crap'. However, you still need morally correct businesses to choose the right reasons to implement MTXs. That's my initial 2p anyway.

[WelchyTV 464]

There’s a clip online from a former Blizzard developer, I can’t remember what game he was referencing but it was something along the lines of them spending months and months of time, and millions and millions of dollars developing a substantial piece of DLC content (similar to the likes of the upcoming Elden Ring DLC), but when they released it, it made significantly less money than a single simple cosmetic microstransatcion did on World of Warcraft. 
 

I’ll try and find the full quote for you as I haven’t summarised it well, but essentially developers move towards microtransactions as they are time and cost efficient, and can often result in significantly more income than a substantial piece of content. 
 

My personal view, they don’t bother me as I know I won’t buy them unless I really love the game and want to spend money on that game and developer (I buy the occasional Marvel themed skin on Fortnite). 
 

Do they have a place in single player games? Personally I think it’s a bit greedy but at the same time the developers want/need to make a bit more cash, and I know I’m not going to buy them so it doesn’t bother me. 
 

My issue comes when they go further than simple cosmetic items, if it’s something that significantly impacts the way the game is played or is pay 2 win on the multiplayer side. I haven’t played Dragons Dogma 2 but if they are charging people to create a new character, then that crosses a line for me. 
 

Keep them as fun, cosmetic and non essential items then people can buy them if they want to have them, or can ignore them and carry on playing the game without it affecting them. 

[phil bottle 9,787]

I've asked Lee to spend £10 on a Tarkov expansion just so he is allowed to play offline coop with me. You have no idea how shitty that makes me feel. That kind of shabbiness and anti consumer exploitation is a fucking disgrace and should not be part of our hobby. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,063]

I think the theme is it depends on what the MTX is. Or maybe it should be the total cost of one skin and have a cap on what one should cost. I don't agree how nice looking skins get marketed to young kids in Fortnite at the costs they are. No wonder why parents spend so much on that game as they should be just 1-2 quid given what they do in game is nothing.

[J4MES OX4D 10,042]

14 hours ago, WelchyTV said:

There’s a clip online from a former Blizzard developer, I can’t remember what game he was referencing but it was something along the lines of them spending months and months of time, and millions and millions of dollars developing a substantial piece of DLC content (similar to the likes of the upcoming Elden Ring DLC), but when they released it, it made significantly less money than a single simple cosmetic microstransatcion did on World of Warcraft. 

That's exactly the problem with the industry - they are more concerned about money than delivering a piece of content they can be proud of. Publishers have them over a barrel - why produce expansive DLC when you can sell a skin that makes one hundred times as much.  Precisely why microtransactions have ruined ethics and standards in games - sure they seem an innocent addition but actually they have a devastating wider effect overall.

 

Thankfully there are still a few developers and publishers out there who take pride in their products rather than using them as annual cash cows to keep the money men happy.