Hiku said: I know this was implemented in the Special Edition of DMC4. My point was that the implementation of these micro transactions didn't seem to affect the game's design. Which is what a lot of people seem to be mainly concerned about when it comes to these things. That's why I addressed it. My point of view is that when a game is designed to induce emotions associated with the rush of gambling, or is intentionally designed to frustrate the player with slow progression to make them open up their wallet, that's when I don't want to give them my money. And if there are such players, and at the same time don't have the disposable income to fund their behavior, then I'm sure natural selection will take care of them sooner or later. Should there be free items/orbs/mode for these players instead? There have been items that increase drop rates in various games for decades, long before micro-transactions were even possible. And they have also deliberately been kept out of many of those games at the time. Mainly because people tend to make use of all the tools they have available, which can lead to a diminished experience for those who didn't need those enhancements. And game developers and publishers are still at the mercy of the satisfaction of their customers, and to some extent the opinions of reviewers, etc. These are some of the reasons why it matters to me whether or not the microtransactions affect the gameplay in a negative way or not, and just how much they're able to squeeze out of someone in a worst case scenario. |
Wish I saw this sooner. You actually have a very excellent rebuttal, which is refreshing from other arguments I've seen for other things lately. I hate that I'm saying that though, because of this is about micro-transactions.
For the Tales of series, I never knew about that because I actually never bought a game in the series. I was actually thinking about buying Beseria before this. I'll get to this and some others toward the end.
You do have a point. Lootboxes isn't the same as micro-transactions. That was part of the reason I edited my previous post, because admittedly I was conflating them. It is important to make that distinction and doing otherwise is disingenuous to any real discussion. I brought them up as an end result problem that ended having needing to be cleared up. I wanted to point out that micro-transactions were a foundation of such practices, and that's why it spiraled to such an extent. I didn't write it in a way that didn't indicated that properly.
In terms of boycotting every game that comes up with bad practices: I am of the standpoint that if you personally feel that there is a bad practice in any game or gaming product. Yes, you absolutely should boycott it. Aside from that, as long as you are not forgiving one game for a practice and not another game for a same practice its fine generally to be ok with a practice others claim to be anti-consumer, so long as (like you're doing) are willing a good explanation as to why because at times, its all about perception. I'm not saying that I'm not trying to change your mind, because I am. I think it is important everyone challenges each other's perceptions without really attacking or disparaging each other for said perception. So if you feel the same way at the end of this, with the way you presented your argument, I genuinely couldn't be close to upset. [I think its important to boycott every practice we see as problematic as we are at a standpoint with the industry where these companies have expectations that they make bigger profits at the expense of gamers and employees.] <- I don't want to go too far into this part because I feel this is big enough to be a topic itself and slightly deviates from our discussion, but feel more than free to respond to this.
Now, while I do understand your disdain/apathy for people willing to pay because they are simply too lazy to play through the game properly, I also feel this is the only part of your argument I think is bad. There was a time I agreed to this, but at the same time has proven that these companies don't care whether or not you're just lazy and want to make the game easier. Children that come into gaming and believe this to be normal, are very easy targets. People with some type of spending addictions may feel the need to get this. For people with addictions and the like, labels wouldn't really do anything to prevent the from buying a game or product. It may in fact, encourage them instead as it may be a means to sate an addiction. I feel your PTSD comparison isn't appropriate for that reason because trauma doesn't normally entice people to look for something that brings their trauma to them. Addictions, on the other hand, absolutely do.
Now obviously this may not be the case in DMC 5, and yes the distinction needs to be said that things, such as gambling addictions, will not be in play. It will not be as bad as FIFA and the like, true enough. Will it be the same as DMC 4 SE? I don't think so. For the record, I can't really discuss the value of the micro-transactions because I simply can't find a video or record online about the price of orbs/moves you get at either the statue or I think at the end of the level. Its been a while since I played it, and I don't feel like downloading the game again to find out. All I could find was that the base DMC 4(the one I own) values for Nero and Dante, which came out to 51900 red orbs and 65700 proud orbs. Obviously something is very wrong with these numbers so I'm not bringing it into account, so we'll go with that everything cost $12. To me, that still does not matter. Going to a point you made earlier, yes, I would find even a penny problematic.
Granted, Both in the example of DMC 4 SE and the penny its a fixed price, making it better than most common cases. However, there was no announcements of micro-transactions for DMC 4SE like there was in DMC 5 (if there was feel free to site it. I genuinely don't think there was). Why? I think the reason is a given as now gamers are more aware so they know they can't just slip it in again. However, now they have the excuse that it was in DMC 4SE, a game, where again, they never made an announcement of. My issue here is that, they have revealed that they are willing to creep this more and more into the game. For this reason I think it will become progressively worse and normalized.
*Also we know we play as three dedicated characters of in this game. It is also suspected that the game will have multiplayer. I believe this, if true, is what Capcom's counting on to pressure people to pay money in order to catch up to others. However, that is merely conjecture I thought up when typing this.*
Now I also acknowledge the part of the argument where you note what impacts experience vs financial returns. I don't necessarily, agree but it certainly an interesting way to look at it that I think is worth looking into. I am firmly against the $60 thing, but I believe that is closer to the argument in my earlier bracket that slightly deviates from what goes into this argument. Also, before this, DMC 5 would have sold very well. I'm almost confident it would have been the best selling game in the series to date by some margin. Consumers had a lot of goodwill for Capcom recently, partially because of this game, but also because of Megaman and Monster Hunter World.
Now as for the Tales of games and other games I'm just finding out about such as the Bravely series. Yes they had micro-transactions. No, I never played them, but would go against it the same way as DMC 5? Yes and the reason is because I feel that I personally was not vocal when bad practices weren't made for games/platforms I didn't care too much about, but the minute it became a problem for what I did like, it was already too late. We've also seen this pushback recently against bad practices that ended up being effective. I just don't think personal complacency is something I want to result in negative consequences again.
Now again, for you I honestly respect your decision. A lot more so than the people who complain yet buy it or especially those that complain and wait for a sale, because they are being complicit, self-serving, holier than thou and yet hypocritically supporting something they don't believe in. At the very least I acknowledge that you are considering micro-transactions from all angles and trying to establish a line where it doesn't negatively impact consumers whilst not hurting the company. Sorry for the very long and delayed response.