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

Forums - Gaming - Microtransactions - what is the big deal?

Otakumegane said:
Captain_Tom said:
Fifaguy360 said:

I'm trying to wrap my head around why gamers are so against this. Mostly, I just see gamers trying to pull one-liners to get thumbs up on other sites i.e. "thank you EA" etc etc. It just seems the popular thing to do right now along with COD hate, except I don't see intelligent discussion about it.

So I'll kick start the discussion. I don't want to pay $10 for a DLC for 10 things of which only 2 I want. I'd rather pay $2 and get my 2 things saving me $8 for perhaps other things I may want.

Isn't this a win for the gamer? If you don't like microtransactions, pls elaborate your position.

I'm not and I agree with you.  

 

Look at BF3.  People can pay to unlock later weapons if they don't have the time to unlock them.  What is wrong with that?  If that is unfair, then it is also unfair that others who play more get an advantage.

My favorite AR in the game is the AN-94, but if I have an M16, I can still kill tons of people.

The thing is the purposely make the time to unlock them longer so you feel more inclined to use $$ to unlock.


Yes and no.  I felt the unlock time was fine, though possibly a little too long.  However many people complain about unlocking everything too fast like in BFBC:2, so this is mostly an opinion.



Around the Network
Fifaguy360 said:
NintendoPie said:
Micro-transactions, as a whole, are perfectly fine. They can be used in many ways to actually aid a title. Too bad they aren't used correctly... and EA would be a prime example. This is why they are always brought up. (They purposely take things "out" of a game to charge you for them later.)

An example of good use of Micro-Transactions (well, DLC, in this case) would be if a track in MK (that wasn't made when the game came out, since no one had the idea at the time) was set up for sale. This is what I mean by "aid a game."


Do you mean to say a game was released with a playable/interactable component, then later was removed and put up for sale?

Can you give an example?


I don't know about EA but Activision has mastered this with Skylanders.  You can't finish the game on disk until you buy additional figures.  But that's more like macrotransactions than micro, which only makes it more offensive.  And yet, the game is a hit.   I believe Capcom has been caught doing this with DLC too but don't remember which game.



 

Gamerace said:
Fifaguy360 said:
NintendoPie said:
Micro-transactions, as a whole, are perfectly fine. They can be used in many ways to actually aid a title. Too bad they aren't used correctly... and EA would be a prime example. This is why they are always brought up. (They purposely take things "out" of a game to charge you for them later.)

An example of good use of Micro-Transactions (well, DLC, in this case) would be if a track in MK (that wasn't made when the game came out, since no one had the idea at the time) was set up for sale. This is what I mean by "aid a game."


Do you mean to say a game was released with a playable/interactable component, then later was removed and put up for sale?

Can you give an example?


I don't know about EA but Activision has mastered this with Skylanders.  You can't finish the game on disk until you buy additional figures.  But that's more like macrotransactions than micro, which only makes it more offensive.  And yet, the game is a hit.   I believe Capcom has been caught doing this with DLC too but don't remember which game.

I can't find anything about beating skylanders requiring additional figures. Everything so far says the additional ones just add to your arsenal of characters. My nephew has this game with the attachment thing you put the toys on, I'll ask him about it.



I'm not a hugo fan of them because they often break the immersion for me. I've no problem with expansion packs or extra costums and stuff being sold on the PSN/Live store and maybe at worst having a link to the store on the title screen, but If I pay £40-50 for a game I don't want it to continue to try and sell me things within the game itself. It's one of the reasons I've not bought Dead Space 3 yet. I mean really... trying to sell me more resources during gameplay? I play games to forget about the real world, not to be confronted by what is essentually in-game pester power.

Basically I am fine with dlc, but I just don't like in-game-selling which is what a lot of microtransactions are.



The thing i hate about microtransactions when developers will be making games with transactions in mind. Developers might pump up the difficulty just so you would buy some extra boosts and stuff like that. When the goal of the game isn't good gameplay, but to get the most money of the players. They might intentionally make some parts so much harder that in order to get past it you need to drop 1-2 dollars. DLC =/= Microtransactions.

So basically i don't trust publishers who are trying to incorporate microtransactions to the game, because it could eventually be developers design philosophy to make the game microtransaction based.



Around the Network

Micro-transactions don't bug me as much as they seem to bug other people, I just refuse to use them as in games like forza and mass effect I can get the stuff by playing the game, which is why I bought the game in the first place: to play it. So generally I ignore the whole process.



Fifaguy360 said:
Gamerace said:
Fifaguy360 said:
NintendoPie said:
Micro-transactions, as a whole, are perfectly fine. They can be used in many ways to actually aid a title. Too bad they aren't used correctly... and EA would be a prime example. This is why they are always brought up. (They purposely take things "out" of a game to charge you for them later.)

An example of good use of Micro-Transactions (well, DLC, in this case) would be if a track in MK (that wasn't made when the game came out, since no one had the idea at the time) was set up for sale. This is what I mean by "aid a game."


Do you mean to say a game was released with a playable/interactable component, then later was removed and put up for sale?

Can you give an example?


I don't know about EA but Activision has mastered this with Skylanders.  You can't finish the game on disk until you buy additional figures.  But that's more like macrotransactions than micro, which only makes it more offensive.  And yet, the game is a hit.   I believe Capcom has been caught doing this with DLC too but don't remember which game.

I can't find anything about beating skylanders requiring additional figures. Everything so far says the additional ones just add to your arsenal of characters. My nephew has this game with the attachment thing you put the toys on, I'll ask him about it.

Don't own the game myself, but what I've read in reviews is that there are sections of the game (on disk) that can only be accessed with Skylanders of certain types - not included with the game.  You can 'finish' the game but you can't access all the areas unless you buy more SkyLanders.  I believe to get 100% of the on disc content you must buy at least another 4 Skylanders.  At least in the original game.  Not that it's well established I don't see reviewers barking about it anymore, it's just become excepted practise. 

Disney and Nintendo are following suit with similar games, although it remains to be seen if they follow the same practise of 'on disk' content or if the characters open DLC or for Nintendo, likely just allow use of that character in-game.



 

Gamerace said:

I don't know about EA but Activision has mastered this with Skylanders.  You can't finish the game on disk until you buy additional figures.  But that's more like macrotransactions than micro, which only makes it more offensive.  And yet, the game is a hit.   I believe Capcom has been caught doing this with DLC too but don't remember which game.


In Skylanders, and the upcoming Disney Infinity and Pokemon, those out-of-game figures can be used as toys, which is another appeal. Game companies are going to continually going to try find new ways to increase revenue A) because games are getting much more expensive to make and B) that is their purpose as a business.

Some people will always object to the new methods. Day-One DLC for example, I used to complain (privately) that developers took too long after a games release to make DLC, so I was actually happy with the instant DLC. Maybe I was duped by their corporate explanations but I didn't see that much to complain about.

The only one that really annoys me is the locked on-the-disc DLC. I haven't bought any Capcom games (although that is likely to change come June) but even if I did I'd refuse to buy it.



Because it's the road to games ending up costing more than they should because you get nickel and dimed for things you should get with the game. Games should be sold as complete packages, not cars where the wheels come separately for an extra ten grand.



The big deal is that its complete and utter bullshit. Imagine buying a car that comes standard with really shitty tires unless you pay a small fee (one for each tyre), buying pants that won't zip or button up or is simply full of holes or too short in the legs inseam without additional fees, buying an album where 1/3 of the album is missing unless you pay extra per song, or better yet; extra per minute of song or buying a cheeseburger plate where they charged you an extra two cents for every french fry.

Microtransactions are bullshit and no other type of consumer would put up with it either.

PS: Fuck EA and everything they do and have done to the industry in the last two decades.