Microtransactions

[Shamitako]

So, this is a big deal RN. It always is but 2k18 fucked it up so it got bigger for a bit. Curious what people's opinions are.

 

In my opinion microtransactions are usually bad but can work well in some cases, even in games with an entry price. They should be viewed on a case by case basis rather than judged as a whole.

[Wolfox]

completely depends on what the transactions are for. if for exaple you need them to fully play a free game, then they can f off. if they turn the game into a pay to win game, well the same. if it for example allows for a new character design or class and it's not too expensive, then they're not that bad IMO. in most cases I'll curse about them tho

[IntSys]

While many would view microtransactions as bad, they also gave birth to the Free-To-Play model, which eased the investment risk on the publisher's side and the players' side. The mobile game market wouldn't have boomed had the model not succeed. Such model allows the games to be fueled by the monetary support of their customers instead of the financial investment of the publisher, and honestly, should the developers be able to appease both the whales and the players that don't spend a single buck, I'm perfectly fine with this model and this may be why gachas are popular and have been seeing more and more successes.

However, I can't really tolerate microtransactions on a paid game. More often than not the existence of DLCs does not reflect the game's price, and it feels like I'm paying for what could very well be a F2P game instead.

I guess my stance would be:
F2P games? Appease your playerbase and your buyers at the same time and I'm perfectly fine with your microtransactions.
DLCs? Stop treating your games like they're F2P games when they're not supposed to be.

[Busti]

I would have much preferred a free to play (F2P) game to have a paid and free version. Like, free with limitations (ads, timers), but then paying once you like the game removes limitations. That would be fair. If you don't like timers, you don't have to play the game nor spend money. I rather appreciate that anyway, it kind of forces me to be less on my phone.

 

Shit goes wrong when you have a game like Candycrush. My wife spent 40$ on a game that at most I would deem worthy of 5$. Why? Well, you pay some to remove the limitations. You play a while. Then your benefits stop, you basically have the F2P game again. So if you get frustrated, you spent money AGAIN to keep going. What is 0.99$ anyway, right? Consider the low cost of developing these games and the low quality that is possible on the phone, that 0.99$ may well be a fair percentage of the value you get from this game.

 

It's a kind of evil. When you are lucky enough that people find your game totally addictive, they just pay and pay without you actually giving them the game. It's still limiting these players.

 

DLC is not like that. You buy extra content, and developers work (I hope they work hard) to offer that for sale. Of course, that DLC needs to be -- extra -- on top of the regular game. Nothing worse than buying an (expensive) game, then they tell you you need to pay extra to finish it.

 

I also second Wolfox on everything he said. Pay to win and Pay to finish are hardly moral.

[Hexagoen]

Honestly yeah: If microtransactions are for cosmetic stuff like a different house look/clothes, go for it. It's actual content that people made that someone might enjoy. If the microtransaction is required to be competitively viable (like an item/thing that beats everything else) or to finish the game (like a locked level/item) that is bullshit and honestly the game dev should either change that or the user base should disappear cause especially for a "free to play" game, that's essentially scamming.

[FairFamily]

Well it is interesting. To be honest microtransactions can be used well for seasonal stuff and F2P games. It can also alleviate the subscription fee for MMO's. However they shouldn't divide your community. So no unfair/unreasonable advantages and such. Also some F2P purposely construct their game to swindle money from their players. 

 

For more traditional games, microtransaction or dlc are a lot more detrimental. The games are in these cases made specifically to cater the dlc. By cutting out story or making your story purposely incomplete is an easy example. On top of that there is always an incentive to not support mods which is a huge shame. On top on that is that most of the time the dlc tends to be more expensive than an expansion.

[5hift]

Again, it totally depends on their use in the game.

 

If they're only for negligible cosmetics, thats fine; integral features/content, you dun fucked up.

 

Lootcrates are the exception. Their sole purpose is to get players to spend more and more to get a specific thing. This is not the same as just purchasing cosmetics because then you actually know what you're getting. It completely fucks with the value of content as somebody can drop tons of cash in hopes of getting a specific item while somebody else can potentially get it randomly for less money.

 

I find it especially unacceptable for singleplayer games to charge for microtransactions.

Edited September 24, 2017 by 5hift

[Godot]

I hate Gachapon/Loot Box systems.  If I want a skin or w/e I would rather spend 3-5 dollars on it rather than grind up or buy $20 worth of loot box things for the chance of getting that one thing.