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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do songs in games like Rock Band/Guitar Hero count as Microtransactions?

Honest question here, but do you folks believe stuff like song packs and albums in games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero count as microtransactions? I ask because, by the strictest definition, they could certainly qualify (small, frequent purchases meant to elongate a game's content), but I am not sure if the term is a blanket concept or something more specific. 

I personally don't see it that way, as I feel that since it's actual new content (like new levels or new worlds/areas to explore). To me it's just small DLC expansion packs, no different in concept to stuff like Skyrim's Dragonborn expansion or Fallout's Far HArbour. But then again, if that's the case, then where's the cutoff? Is it a 'microtransaction' when it's a small enough cost? But then there's stuff in Fifa for like 120 bucks for a bunch of loot boxes. Is it DLC or Microtransactions when it's new content? Does it have to be recurrent or temporary boosts? 

I just want to know where everyone draws the line between Microtransactions and DLC, and what people feel constitutes one over the other. 

For me, I feel if it's new actual content with actual gameplay (new songs, new levels, new game modes, new worlds to explore, new weapons, etc), then it's DLC regardless of its size. If it's cosmetic only or something intangible like costumes or EXP boosts, or gambling like loot boxes, then it's Microtransactions. I bring this up because someone mentioned in another thread that Bethesda's Horse armor was the first microtransaction, but I always felt that since that had gameplay implications that it was just a very small, very cheap DLC. 

Of course, what I feel and how I view the matter is not necessarily reflective of what the truth actually is or what others feel. 

So, what constitutes a microtransaction and where's the line between Microtransactions and DLC? 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

Around the Network

Yes, definitely. It's no different from if Pokemon games started selling Pokemon one by one, those would be microtransactions too.

I'd also say there's no line between microtransactions and DLC. All microtransactions are DLC, just smaller/cheaper stuff (unless bought in bulk, obviously).



Ka-pi96 said:

Yes, definitely. It's no different from if Pokemon games started selling Pokemon one by one, those would be microtransactions too.

I'd also say there's no line between microtransactions and DLC. All microtransactions are DLC, just smaller/cheaper stuff (unless bought in bulk, obviously).

I do not really look at expansion packs and micro transactions in the same light TBH.  In the case of Skyrim and Fallout, these are bulky additions to the game made AFTER the release of the project to prolong the life of said title.  In most cases, they can be seen as their own game.  This is why a lot of DLC expansion packs these days get their own separate release without the need of the base game, such as Xenoblade Torna and Uncharted Lost Legacy.  Now it is possible for expansion packs to be abused as well, in the form of cut content being sold after the fact...but that is another topic entirely.

Micro transactions are often cheap cash grabs, often things thay used to be unlockables.  Things like skins, voices, boosters, etc fall under this category.  Some are harmless to the game itself, but addictive to certain players.  Others are toxic and can affect how the game is designed, such as boosters where the player is made to feel like they need them to lessen a grind.

To me proper DLC packs are far more forgiving than micro transactions in general.  They take a lot more work and offer mucb more meaningful content in most cases.  In regards to they topic however, yes they are micro transactions...but the acceptable kind.  Songs in Rockband or Guitar Hero are often tied to extra licensing that is beyond the developer's control.  If you buy these, it can be viewed as no different than buying songs from your favorite artists and downloading them.  Or packs of songs would be no different than buying a CD except you are using them in a video game rather than just putting it into a CD player.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yes, definitely. It's no different from if Pokemon games started selling Pokemon one by one, those would be microtransactions too.

I'd also say there's no line between microtransactions and DLC. All microtransactions are DLC, just smaller/cheaper stuff (unless bought in bulk, obviously).

I do not really look at expansion packs and micro transactions in the same light TBH.  In the case of Skyrim and Fallout, these are bulky additions to the game made AFTER the release of the project to prolong the life of said title.  In most cases, they can be seen as their own game.  This is why a lot of DLC expansion packs these days get their own separate release without the need of the base game, such as Xenoblade Torna and Uncharted Lost Legacy.  Now it is possible for expansion packs to be abused as well, in the form of cut content being sold after the fact...but that is another topic entirely.

Micro transactions are often cheap cash grabs, often things thay used to be unlockables.  Things like skins, voices, boosters, etc fall under this category.  Some are harmless to the game itself, but addictive to certain players.  Others are toxic and can affect how the game is designed, such as boosters where the player is made to feel like they need them to lessen a grind.

To me proper DLC packs are far more forgiving than micro transactions in general.  They take a lot more work and offer mucb more meaningful content in most cases.  In regards to they topic however, yes they are micro transactions...but the acceptable kind.  Songs in Rockband or Guitar Hero are often tied to extra licensing that is beyond the developer's control.  If you buy these, it can be viewed as no different than buying songs from your favorite artists and downloading them.  Or packs of songs would be no different than buying a CD except you are using them in a video game rather than just putting it into a CD player.

That's the point though. Microtransaction aren't any different from DLC, except maybe they are mini-DLC. That is not inherently bad. But in an industry that is greedy and want to squeeze the last dollar from customers, stuff like this gets horribly misused. That's why people tend to use the name DLC for 'good stuff' and the name MTX for 'bad stuff'. But even here that line is blurry, as good and bad is objective. It boils down to: is the additional content worth the price. And that may be different for who you're asking. The Mii-costumes in Smash are less than a dollar each and very much qualify as micro and hence MTX. Are they worth it? That seems to be a question everyone is answering differently.

For the original question: sure the songs if sold separately are MTX. But they are in this type of games are also practically a new level, so can easily be seen as 'good' DLC.

One final thought: stuff like the character change voucher in MH Rise is bad, because Capcom can generate an endless amount of them at no cost. Selling them is therefore morally questionable (it would be different if they were locked not behind money, but game progress, still limited but not a cheap profit). At least the songs in music games need licensing fees and the Mii costumes in Smash work to implement them, so they are not free for the dev either.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Individual songs I would say are microtransactions. Bundles I see as DLC.



Around the Network

Double post



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Mnementh said:
Shiken said:

I do not really look at expansion packs and micro transactions in the same light TBH.  In the case of Skyrim and Fallout, these are bulky additions to the game made AFTER the release of the project to prolong the life of said title.  In most cases, they can be seen as their own game.  This is why a lot of DLC expansion packs these days get their own separate release without the need of the base game, such as Xenoblade Torna and Uncharted Lost Legacy.  Now it is possible for expansion packs to be abused as well, in the form of cut content being sold after the fact...but that is another topic entirely.

Micro transactions are often cheap cash grabs, often things thay used to be unlockables.  Things like skins, voices, boosters, etc fall under this category.  Some are harmless to the game itself, but addictive to certain players.  Others are toxic and can affect how the game is designed, such as boosters where the player is made to feel like they need them to lessen a grind.

To me proper DLC packs are far more forgiving than micro transactions in general.  They take a lot more work and offer mucb more meaningful content in most cases.  In regards to they topic however, yes they are micro transactions...but the acceptable kind.  Songs in Rockband or Guitar Hero are often tied to extra licensing that is beyond the developer's control.  If you buy these, it can be viewed as no different than buying songs from your favorite artists and downloading them.  Or packs of songs would be no different than buying a CD except you are using them in a video game rather than just putting it into a CD player.

That's the point though. Microtransaction aren't any different from DLC, except maybe they are mini-DLC. That is not inherently bad. But in an industry that is greedy and want to squeeze the last dollar from customers, stuff like this gets horribly misused. That's why people tend to use the name DLC for 'good stuff' and the name MTX for 'bad stuff'. But even here that line is blurry, as good and bad is objective. It boils down to: is the additional content worth the price. And that may be different for who you're asking. The Mii-costumes in Smash are less than a dollar each and very much qualify as micro and hence MTX. Are they worth it? That seems to be a question everyone is answering differently.

For the original question: sure the songs if sold separately are MTX. But they are in this type of games are also practically a new level, so can easily be seen as 'good' DLC.

One final thought: stuff like the character change voucher in MH Rise is bad, because Capcom can generate an endless amount of them at no cost. Selling them is therefore morally questionable (it would be different if they were locked not behind money, but game progress, still limited but not a cheap profit). At least the songs in music games need licensing fees and the Mii costumes in Smash work to implement them, so they are not free for the dev either.

By literal definition alone, yes they are all DLC.  That is why I refer to them as their sub groups, expansion packs vs microtransactions rather than DLC vs microtransactions.

My point was that they are very different types of DLC, which is what the OP was aiming at.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yes, definitely. It's no different from if Pokemon games started selling Pokemon one by one, those would be microtransactions too.

I'd also say there's no line between microtransactions and DLC. All microtransactions are DLC, just smaller/cheaper stuff (unless bought in bulk, obviously).

I do not really look at expansion packs and micro transactions in the same light TBH.  In the case of Skyrim and Fallout, these are bulky additions to the game made AFTER the release of the project to prolong the life of said title.  In most cases, they can be seen as their own game.  This is why a lot of DLC expansion packs these days get their own separate release without the need of the base game, such as Xenoblade Torna and Uncharted Lost Legacy.  Now it is possible for expansion packs to be abused as well, in the form of cut content being sold after the fact...but that is another topic entirely.

Micro transactions are often cheap cash grabs, often things thay used to be unlockables.  Things like skins, voices, boosters, etc fall under this category.  Some are harmless to the game itself, but addictive to certain players.  Others are toxic and can affect how the game is designed, such as boosters where the player is made to feel like they need them to lessen a grind.

To me proper DLC packs are far more forgiving than micro transactions in general.  They take a lot more work and offer mucb more meaningful content in most cases.  In regards to they topic however, yes they are micro transactions...but the acceptable kind.  Songs in Rockband or Guitar Hero are often tied to extra licensing that is beyond the developer's control.  If you buy these, it can be viewed as no different than buying songs from your favorite artists and downloading them.  Or packs of songs would be no different than buying a CD except you are using them in a video game rather than just putting it into a CD player.

Not saying they should be thought of as the same, but they both are DLC.

Plus, microtransactions done right are arguably better. Only buying the things you want and not wasting money on the things you don't would be good. Of course in reality most people want all of the content, and worse things being sold as microtransactions usually end up significantly more expensive than just being a load of stuff packaged together.

The OP's example of songs in music games I'd say are microtransactions done right. They're definitely still microtransactions, but it's certainly better to just be able to pick and choose which songs you want rather than have to pay a big lump of money for a load, many of which you couldn't care less about.



If you buy single musics for the game then yes it is MTX.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

KLXVER said:

Individual songs I would say are microtransactions. Bundles I see as DLC.

I would say depends of the bundle (as someone said you can buy lootboxes bundles in Fifa that are like 2x more expensive than the base game). Musics on bundle I would say depends on how it is made... is it a collection like several songs from the same singer, have some theme like classic rock, or just picked random 10 musics and put together, or worse yet 10 vouchers for you to select the musics you want? Those last 2 I wouldn`t consider DLC, just a MTX pack.

But saying that personally I`m more inclined to put MTX on the cosmetic or cut the grind type of stuff. New music is playable so even one could qualify as DLC.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."