Do micro transactions HAVE to affect the game?

[Vault101]

lets just assume for a moment that a micro-transaction in a game does not in ANY way affect the game istelf.All it essentially does is provide an option for [strike/]people of questionable intellegance and skill[/S] certain gamers to blow money on making the game easier (because thats only a good thing right?), I mean in principle there is NOTHING you can buy via micro transactions that you can't get in-game.Would that be such an awful thing?

ok let me back up a second and hear me out..please

this IS going to sound like [i/]"yall should stop complain'in 'an sqeal like uh pig for mista game company"[/i] which isnt my intent, I understand why people decide "fuck this shit" and claim not to buy it, I cant argue there..most of time. But

and heres the big "But". A sort of "prediction" of mine, I get the impression micro transactions and other forms of extracting money are just part of the future, an unfortunate thing we'll all learn to accpt and deal with, like adds before youtube videos or DRM in PC games in fact weve come to love DRM like weve got a bad case of stockholm syndrom (sing its praises all you want Steam is a form of DRM)

I'm NOT saying its ok, I'm NOT saying we should just shut up and accept it, I AM saying that we shouldnt underestimate what people can and will get used to and accept. You might draw the line at micro transations but what about those casual/COD loving kids you love to hate? to them theres nothing wrong, squealing like a pig for mr game company is normal.

With that said, here's my point

People (understandibly) get enraged and cry boycott at the mention of micro transactions, but perhaps they should stop for a second and think [b/]what am I actually being denied?[/b] so what are you being denied? because the assumption that "if I dont pay for it I cant get it" isnt always true

in the case of ME3 or (I think) Battlefeild 3 you arent being denied anything, but other people are essentially buying time, cutting out the "grind" factor...in a competitive setting this might seem like a "pay to win" scenario, which I cant comment on as I dont have a deep enough understanding of the gameplay. But if people want to save time is that honestly such a bad thing?

[b/]but[/b] the second but, I have to bring up the point that if somthing is IN the game then the game has to allow for it in some way or another, I'm not expert on game balance and the nuance of it all but to assume that micro transaction have NO effect on the core game is somwhat nieave. Its like Borderlands 1 or Borderlands 2....in BL1 the co-op is an essental part of the game, without it the game feels stripped down and dull. In BL2 the co-op is again a big aspect but NOT choosing to play with somone else does not affect my enjoyment of the game at all

 

[Woiminkle]

Well it doesn't HAVE to affect the game but in all probability it will. For example some games will always rely on a certain amount of grinding either because of the games mechanics, and the rarity of items sought or the amount of xp required to reach the next level or upgrade, or as an artificial way to extend the gameplay.

Now if a company should get the notion that people's impatience will send them down the path of buying their way past the boring grindy parts and they as a consequence get more money out of the player base, do you think that in the next game they put out there will be more or less of those boring grindy parts?

The thing is if they make the game more annoying to play without buying your way past and they are rewarded for that with more money then they will do it again and again. Not only that but they will push it further and further just to see how much more money they can milk out of it.

And in the end we get 60 dollar (or your regional equivalent) games that will cost additional money later on in order to complete in an average human lifespan or to get the "true" or "best" ending.

 

[Windcaler]

Here is the crux of the issue IMO. Microtransaction do have a place but its in free to play business models. When I buy a $60 title like say Dead space 3 that has microtransactions Im saying thats ok, and its not (btw if you havnt heard dead space 3 will have microtransactions). When you pay for a game you're supposed to get everything in development up to the point it went off for certification but instead we have companies that are abusing microtransactions and putting broken games out in the market like WarZ. Microtransactions have no place in a game that you buy and shame on any developer for putting them in.

For those games like WoW with subscription models your paying to keep the servers running and to get access to everything the company makes in the meantime. Thats not happening with WoW and its another bad business practice.

On the other side of the table is the free to play games where microtransactions do have a place. In this case there has to be a balance between earning money for the company and making sure that your game isnt pay to win. Blacklight retribution is IMO a revolutionary business model where it does have game effecting stuff that you can buy with currency earned in game or real money. However its cosmetic items, stuff that doesnt effect gameplay is real money only. The revolutionary part is players can rent parts, equipment, full guns for a really cheap price (about 200 gp which is 2 games or about 50 cents at most for 24 hours). The best part is everything is a side grade and there are no direct upgrades

To answer your question, no microtransactions dont have to effect gameplay but that requires pretty much only cosmetic items

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I have a big problem with micro-transactions in single player games. Publishers are essentially charging money for cheat codes. And that shit just doesn't sit right with me. I would hope that most people don't support this practice.

 

[lechat]

it's the nature of the beast that they will eventually effect gameplay if the company is making money off them
if a game has 50 hours worth of boring grind and you can get 2x xp to cut that in half and players pay to get the benefit then you can bet your ass next update/version will have 200 hours worth of grind and 4x xp for more money, when logically what the game company should be doing is seeing that players don't like the grind and removing it.

i've seen it happen a million times in free to play games where grind and rewards are gradually increased up to the point that you CAN play the game without paying but that would require no life

 

[Twilight_guy]

There's a difference between micro-transactions and 'pay-to-win'. 'Pay-to-win' is micro-transactions implemented in the worst way. There are other ways of setting things up. In the ideal situation a micro-transation is essentially exchanging money for time. Rather then grinding for an hour for item X, you can buy it for 10 bucks. Then its simply a matter of what is more valuable to you, time or money. Both are resources you need to spend for X, you pick which one. The problem is system that either don't allow you that option (you can only buy item X), or they make it prohibitively expensive for one option (grind 1000 hours or pay 10 bucks). I think an additional problem people have with micro-translation is that they don't see money as a resource. They see time as a resource but money as free, a cheat. They don't consider that a person needs to earn money and thus it does represent a time commitment outside the game. Gamers don't like it when someone can get something else for 'free' when they had to pay (with there time) for it.

 

[Jandau]

Do microtransactions have to affect the game? No, of course not. But they will, and it's naive to expect otherwise.

Think about it, you are a game developer/publisher and are making a game that will contain microtransactions. Do you tweak the game so that it encourages them? OF COURSE YOU DO! It means more money for you. And if there's one thing you can rely on it's that big business will go after the money. Want an example? Diablo 3. The game was deliberately designed with lower drop rates to encourage the use of the real-money auction house. There are plenty of such examples.

The next point is that microtransactions are perfectly fine in F2P games, but they are double dipping when it comes to full priced titles. This isn't something we have to "learn to accept", it's something we need to push back against. Publishers are currently pushing to see how far they can make us pay. And you know where it'll end? When we stop giving in. As long as people like the OP just shrug and accept it, you can expect higher prices, more nickel'n'diming, more added costs, more incomplete products and so on and so forth.

Accepting lower quality and poorer service as "inevitable" is a terrible thing to do and it's sad that a solid percentage of the gaming population not only does so, but does so happily...

Oh, and concerning the whole "We've come to love DRM" line in the OP - No, we haven't. We still hate DRM. We just love steam because it makes up for the DRM crap with other things (dirt cheap games being the most noteworthy).

 

[Vault101]

snip.

I specifically meant steam

oh sure everyone loves steam but I would bet alot that before steam was big a large number of PC gamers would find that kind of thing (a program that forces updates on you and being connected to the internet..a program that stands between you and your games) unimaginable...gone are the days when there was no DRM now its in a form people (for better or worse) find acceptable

of coarse in this case people are (rightly) waaaaaaay less trusting of EA than they are Valve. I'm not saying micro transactions are inevitable predicting the future is hard, I'm saying dont be surprised at what people will come to accept

 

[an annoyed writer]

Microtranactions, when implemented in the Mass Effect an Dead Space models, do affect the game, since the implementation is primarily focused on weapons and equipment, your tools for playing the game and solving the problems the game presents to you. Now this is perfectly acceptable in a game with a free to play model, since it's exactly that: free to play. With Mass Effect and Dead Space, you're paying a heavy price for admission: around $60USD at least. What this does is create a conflict of models: on one hand, you've bought a big game and you expect a fun and worthwhile experience, but with microtransactions designed into a game like this, it breaks the game and makes it unenjoyable.

Remember how much of a slog it is to get halfway-decent equipment in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer? If you want the top spectre pack you have to get about 90,000 credits: That's about six bronze games worth, three or four silver games worth, or two gold games worth. The difficulty curve resembles a spike, and unless you've got superhuman reflexes, teamwork, and hand-eye coordination, the only way to stand a chance on the higher difficulties is to get better gear. Of course, they've made it so that there is no guarantee that you'll even get credits in each game you play, making getting said credits a tedious grind. The worst part about it is that they've made the item-acquisition process a gun lottery: you pay in and get random loot. You don't truly get much choice in terms of your preferred loadout. From the ground-up this model is built to be a tedious and unenjoyable slog. The difficulty spike, combined with the tedium of trying to acquire better tools is built for one purpose and one only: to get you will fork over the cash to try and get better gear. You don't have to fork over the cash, but the game is designed to make you want to do so: in other words, IT AFFECTED THE DESIGN OF THE GAME!

I have a feeling that a similar model will be implemented in Dead Space 3, due to the same execs and all. It doesn't have to be like this: Microtransactions can be reworked to have less impact on the game, like the Blacklight: Retribution model. It still affects the game however, but in a different way: with the Blacklight model, gameplay balance is not as skewed against the player, and the price of admission is not nearly as high.

So in short, with a badly implemented model like Mass Effect 3's, you are losing fun. The game is designed to be unfun unless you fork over the cash to try and make it fun. You've already paid full price for admission: why should you have to pay more to make the game fun? You paid for a promise for the game to be fun when you paid that price of admission, so doesn't it feel like a screwover and waste of cash when it doesn't turn out to be fun at all, and the game tells you the best way to try and make it fun is to throw more of your money at it? I can tell you I feel pretty fucked over by that model, and you should too.

 

[hazabaza1]

It's a cunty thing to do in singleplayer games.
If I'm supposed to pay £30 for a game at launch (or more if it's a console game) then I should be able to apply my skill and prowess to experience everything the game has to offer. Unless the game vastly changes a second time around, preferably on the first playthrough.

In DS3's case, it seems like people are saying that to craft every "unique" weapon (like, every base to start off with, not every minor variation) you'll actually have to fork out cash on a first playthrough. That sucks major dicks.

 

[Jandau]

snip.

I specifically meant steam

oh sure everyone loves steam but I would bet alot that before steam was big a large number of PC gamers would find that kind of thing (a program that forces updates on you and being connected to the internet..a program that stands between you and your games) unimaginable...gone are the days when there was no DRM now its in a form people (for better or worse) find acceptable

of coarse in this case people are (rightly) waaaaaaay less trusting of EA than they are Valve. I'm not saying micro transactions are inevitable predicting the future is hard, I'm saying dont be surprised at what people will come to accept

But the thing is, Steam offsets the hassle of DRM by being a quality service that provides convenience and great prices. I'm not a major Steam (or Valve) fan, but even I can recognize how much they've done to bring PC gaming back into the spotlight. Compare it to crap like Securom or uPlay and you can clearly see the difference. Sure, people would be even happier of they could have the benefits of Steam without the hassle, but the good still outweighs the bad.

In fact, Ubisoft is a great example of how we've NOT come to accept DRM. Ubisoft has cracked down on the PC market quite hard with pointlessly restrictive DRM (even more restrictive than Steam), but with no real benefits for the user. As a result, Ubisoft has seen low sales on the PC as users shy away from them precisely because of the inferior service they are providing.

People are willing to compromise but compromise isn't the same as "take it up the butthole". Steam is a compromise, uPlay isn't.

This extends to other issues, one of which is microtransactions. People are starting to get a bit fed up with the "pay now, then pay some more later" models that are taking over AAA gaming. DLC was the first of these and it went over reasonably well because it did provide convenience, though at a higher price point than the older expansion model (DLC tends to have a terrible price/content ratio, especially compared to the core game). On-disc DLC was the next step and it has met with fairly sizeable resistance, to the point that some games got pretty much ignored because of it.

This bastard hybridization of classic "$60 AAA games" and F2P microtransactions doesn't benefit the consumer in any way, it's simply a money-milking strategy and I can only hope it doesn't go over too well.

In fact, I'm kinda glad they're trying it with Dead Space 3 - EA has stated that DS3 needs to sell over 5 million copies to be profitable. It's not going to come anywhere near that (I remember reading that DS1&2 combined didn't sell that many) and is likely going to be labeled failure by EA, which might mean that the new "business model" will get caught in the blast and abandoned...

 

[loa]

Just wait until dead space 3 is released and ask that again.
Spoiler: In dead space 1 and 2, there was no grinding.

Or just look at how tf2 developed after introducing microtransactions.
Crafting recipes for items became ridiculously item expensive, they introduced crate garbage items that are useless until you buy a key with real money (that you can only use one time of course) and ridiculously rare items.
If it's there, the whole game will be bent and broken to give you a reason to want to use it.
How can you even think it doesn't affect the whole game?

 

[BartyMae]

An action RPG (ala Diablo) called Path of Exile employs microtransactions, but you can't buy anything that directly affects gameplay. They only do cosmetic things. They call it "ethical microtransactions".

https://www.pathofexile.com/purchase

"In order to fund the development and continued expansion of Path of Exile, we offer a range of ethical microtransactions that allow you to distinguish yourself in the world of Wraeclast without receiving any gameplay advantage. We are completely opposed to the concept of ?pay-to-win?."

 

[Comocat]

I think of f2p is flying on an airline. Sure you can drop a couple hundred dollars and fly some where, but if you want comfort and convienence, you need to pay for it. One can easily add 100s of dollars in amenities to the base package to make travel less of a burden. I'm not interested dealing with video games like I'm dealing with an airline. I played Lotro for awhile, but the meta-game of spending your points wisely eventually became to onerous so we parted ways.

 

[Vault101]

In fact, I'm kinda glad they're trying it with Dead Space 3 - EA has stated that DS3 needs to sell over 5 million copies to be profitable. It's not going to come anywhere near that (I remember reading that DS1&2 combined didn't sell that many) and is likely going to be labeled failure by EA, which might mean that the new "business model" will get caught in the blast and abandoned...

don't youunder stand EA logic? if Dead Space fails it will be because Dead Space OBVIOUSLY isn't what sells the answer is and always will be MOAR COD!

Mass Effect 3! PUT MOAR COD IN IT

Dragon age PUT MORE MASS EFFECT IN IT <-THEN we can gradually move up to COD

Dead Space <-failure there was not enough COD, COD PUT COD IN EVERYTHING WE NED MOOOOOOOAAAARR COOOOOD then charge them for bullets!

 

[Elijin]

In a MP format, so long as these are met:

a) You can obtain the purchased content through gameplay via skill or investment of time.

OR

b) The purchased content is purely cosmetic in nature.

Then Im fine with it.

As for singleplayer, eh. If you dont buy it, at least it just doesnt exist.

 

[Yopaz]

When it comes to unlocking things that's possible to obtain in other ways I'm fine with it. If it is early access to something then I'm fine with it. I am also perfectly fine with map packs since it takes some work to make them.

I rarely buy DLC, but not because I hate it. I never spend money on unlocking things because the work behind it is half the fun.

 

[Ranorak]

I like to provide Guild Wars 2 as an example of micro-transactions done right.

The game allows you to buy Gems with real money. These Gems (not to be confused with the gems from crafting) can, in turn, be spend on several items, such as;
Vanity clothing.
Vanity pets.
Xp boosters*
Karma Boosters*
Crafting boosters*
Black Lion Keys* (keys that open random loot chests)
Dye packs*
Transmutation Stones* (change the look of an item into another)
Additional Character slots
Upgrade to Deluxe edition

All items marked with a * are obtainable in game without the use of Gems.
BUT!
Gems don't have to be bought by Real money exclusively.
People that buy gems with Real Money can also sell them for in game money.
Thus, get enough gold and you can buy Gems, spending those on whatever you like.

This system prevents RL (shady) gold selling. Most items are just for vanity.
And players who rather not spend RL money, can still obtain those vanity items.

I like this system, and even though I spend 50 euro's on getting the game, the fact that it's an MMO without monthly cost has let me to believe that this system is perfectly acceptable.

 

[TrevHead]

It's the whole philosophy of the f2p model that doesn't fit into the £60 game, they aren't just taking bits out of a game and selling it as bad DLC, they are in some way removing the fun unless you pay up.

It is something that I don't want anywhere near traditional games, and I won't be touching DS3 with a bargepole.

 

[DustyDrB]

Slippery slope fallacy be damned, I just see this sort of thing as leaving a door open that will be exploited down the road. I'd just rather not support it. Not that I'm into Dead Space, anyway (not a knock on it. I don't like horror in general). And yeah, double-dipping...not a fan.