By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is it normal to have "microtransactions" in $60 AAA games?

It is now thanks to the blind puppets who have allowed it with the ''Oh but i don't use them so it doesn't affect me'' mentality lol - and there will be even more, and more, and more, as long a people keep buying the games that have them, so that's the bright future of the industry ladies and gentlemen



Around the Network

It's normal in this generation, unfortunately. It'll go away if people don't buy in though...



 

Busted said:
It is now thanks to the blind puppets who have allowed it with the ''Oh but i don't use them so it doesn't affect me'' mentality lol - and there will be even more, and more, and more, as long a people keep buying the games that have them, so that's the bright future of the industry ladies and gentlemen

Better a "blind puppet" than a whining child who thinks everything has to be tailored to them.  Those people are so damn annoying.  Everything is an earth-shattering disaster.

It doesn't even make any sense to me.  "Oh no, this game has microtransactions that in no way impact my experience playing!  I'm going to protest!"  It's like going to McDonalds and yelling, "oh no, you serve sausage!  I hate sausage!  I'm going to protest!"  It's so silly.  When it becomes unacceptable, then I will let developers and publishers know.  That seems like common sense to me.



Ruler said:


they are cheaper now dueto technology becoming cheaper. Cartridges used to be more espensive and so did CDs/DVDs in the earlier stage. Yet they still want 60 bucks full price along DLC and Microtransactions.

The physical item has gotten cheaper but the production of the actual content continues to grow in cost.  As people demand better graphics, more voice acting, motion reference/motion capture, the costs continue to increase.  Microtransactions are a great way for these companies to obtain more money to help with their bottom line while not increasing the price across the board on all gamers.



pokoko said:
Busted said:
It is now thanks to the blind puppets who have allowed it with the ''Oh but i don't use them so it doesn't affect me'' mentality lol - and there will be even more, and more, and more, as long a people keep buying the games that have them, so that's the bright future of the industry ladies and gentlemen

Better a "blind puppet" than a whining child who thinks everything has to be tailored to them.  Those people are so damn annoying.  Everything is an earth-shattering disaster.

It doesn't even make any sense to me.  "Oh no, this game has microtransactions that in no way impact my experience playing!  I'm going to protest!"  It's like going to McDonalds and yelling, "oh no, you serve sausage!  I hate sausage!  I'm going to protest!"  It's so silly.  When it becomes unacceptable, then I will let developers and publishers know.  That seems like common sense to me.


I dont think The same lógic applies here. Sometimes The devs works like drug-dealers, offer you a little bit of and males you pay more for instantn gratification.

 

You van argue its not mandatory, but they sometimes makes games extremely frustrating and extremely difficult to get The best stuff just by playing it and forces people to buy in game stuff in order to be competitive in online enviroment . 

I remeber games used to havê extra scenarios and bônus just for xompleting The game. Now everything is dlc and microtransactions.



Around the Network

i hate them. only games that warrant micro transactions are full out F2P games. Best example I can think of is tekken revolution.

personally I think every fighting game should adopt the Yemen revolution model. was pretty brilliant.



To me it only makes sense as DLC. But I guess if people wanna pay for short cuts to new clothes etc then let them.



invetedlotus123 said:


I dont think The same lógic applies here. Sometimes The devs works like drug-dealers, offer you a little bit of and males you pay more for instantn gratification.

 

You van argue its not mandatory, but they sometimes makes games extremely frustrating and extremely difficult to get The best stuff just by playing it and forces people to buy in game stuff in order to be competitive in online enviroment . 

I remeber games used to havê extra scenarios and bônus just for xompleting The game. Now everything is dlc and microtransactions.

I'm simply saying that microtransactions are not inherently bad or harmful.  Was anyone hurt by the existence of horse armor?

Borderlands 2 had a bunch of microtransactions for replacement heads and skins.  However, it also had a ton of heads and skins as in-game content, even more than the original Borderlands.  The existence of those DLC packs did not hurt me in the slightest.  It had zero impact on my enjoyment of the game.  Why should I protest that?  IF it had been a situation where microtransaction clearly deducted from the content of the full game, THEN I would let Gearbox know that they had done something I could not accept.  I've never purchased a microtransaction of that nature but I have no problem if someone else does, as long as what THEY like does not negatively affect what I like.  I'm not so selfish as to think everything must appeal to only me.

As far as game content goes, what we get now is far more than ever before.  Games in the past were usually tiny and typically employed mechanisms to extend playing time in order to mask that.  I don't have a problem with additional work by the developers not being free.  Games require a lot of money to produce.



Neodegenerate said:
Ruler said:


they are cheaper now dueto technology becoming cheaper. Cartridges used to be more espensive and so did CDs/DVDs in the earlier stage. Yet they still want 60 bucks full price along DLC and Microtransactions.

The physical item has gotten cheaper but the production of the actual content continues to grow in cost.  As people demand better graphics, more voice acting, motion reference/motion capture, the costs continue to increase.  Microtransactions are a great way for these companies to obtain more money to help with their bottom line while not increasing the price across the board on all gamers.

wrong, the installbase got bigger, they get more money than ever. What changed is the high demand from stock holders to raise profits. These gaming companies sold all their shares to them instead to remain independent 



Ruler said:
Neodegenerate said:
Ruler said:


they are cheaper now dueto technology becoming cheaper. Cartridges used to be more espensive and so did CDs/DVDs in the earlier stage. Yet they still want 60 bucks full price along DLC and Microtransactions.

The physical item has gotten cheaper but the production of the actual content continues to grow in cost.  As people demand better graphics, more voice acting, motion reference/motion capture, the costs continue to increase.  Microtransactions are a great way for these companies to obtain more money to help with their bottom line while not increasing the price across the board on all gamers.

wrong, the installbase got bigger, they get more money than ever. What changed is the high demand from stock holders to raise profits. These gaming companies sold all their shares to them instead to remain independent 


So you think the install base grew at an equal or greater rate than the cost associated with making the games?  Why then did the companies sell to the stock holders?  I can tell you why: to get enough money to make the games they want to make.  Rising costs to developers = rising costs to consumers.  Its business 101.  For now, they are using the microtransaction model.  If that were to fail out, they would wind up selling 65 dollar games.