Phlakes said:
ITT: People angry about something that'll never affect them if they don't choose to use it.
They weren't a big deal in Dead Space 3 (at least not to the people who weren't trying to make them a big deal), but hey, it's EA trying to make money, so fuck them I guess.
*sigh.
It doesn't effect us? It actually does. The inclusion of micro transactions fall into 2 categories.
First one: The shoe horned.
I'll use Oblivion as an example. Horse Armor. Micro-transactions were not an integral part of game play, and thus, unimportant. They were just a blind cash grab. Which should come with the caveat of "If you were dumb enough to buy it, you deserve it." But that's not really the case. It sends a message to the developer when shoe-horned cash grabs are acceptable that it's okay to nickle and dime us. And it also allows developers to get more ballsy. Look at companies like Capcom, which have been known to lock content on the disk away until you pay for the unlock code. Or Mass Effect 3, where a squad mate is locked away on the disk unless you payed an extra $10. Oh, and the squad mate is a Prothean which offers back story on the most important race in the Mass Effect universe. You know what, Shoe-Horned Micro transactions in those cases DID effect me.
Second one: The integrated.
Your business model directly shapes your game as a whole - that is pretty much a chapter in Game Theory 101. Naturally, more and more games use Micro transactions as their business model - which effects how the rest of the game flows. A good game will never require that you use micro transactions if you want to succeed at the game. I'll use League of Legends as an example. The only bit of game play I can modify with cash is character unlocks - characters are individually unlocked with points you get for playing the game, so all you're doing is essentially speeding up the process. I can also modify the points I get after games for a certain amount of time, or modify my experience if I'm not max level. One thing I can't buy though are Runes - those can only be purchased with in game currency, not real life currency, and offer you additional stats. I can also choose to buy new skins for characters - if I want to make a Lovecraftian demon wear a top hat and speak like a gentleman, that's an option. I don't get more powerful - I simply look better. The game is centered around making convenience and aesthetic the only thing you can buy. A selection of champions is cycled each week so you can test them out without committing to a purchase, and people who spend money on the game do not have a competitive edge over those that don't. And the reason people put up with this is because the game is free. You are never asked to support them - and they even give you free stuff if their service is under performing.
And then lets look at a game that does it bad. Diablo 3. A full priced PC game. Diablo and Diablo 2 had a strong story focus for the core players, as well as a competitive multiplayer component that allowed people to interact, trade, etc. The core mechanics of these games were randomly generated loot and levels, as well as a game built off dynamic choice. If you screwed up your character build then too bad - deal with it. The modding communities also had a field day with these games - skyrocketing the lifespan of this game for years and years after it had ceased to be relevant.
Diablo 3 was built was a real money auction house in mind - where Blizzard gets a chunk of the change as well. To make sure people couldn't cheat, the game had to be Online always. If you lived in a rural or stormy area, and wanted a single player game for when your internet went out - well, fuck you then. There was no offline mode, which meant if your internet wasn't stable, you couldn't play a single player game. For those of us that did have stable connections - we couldn't play it for the first day or so because of various errors with the servers. Then, when we did, EVEN IN SINGLE PLAYER, it lagged. Modding was not allowed because, well, breaking the games code would result in Blizzard not making money from their real life auction house. So, micro transactions not only effected my experience of a game, but also limited it. Higher difficulties, something Diablo was based on, were also stacked in a way that you NEEDED to buy armor to complete it for the longest time. You would hit a roadblock that could only be gotten past with extreme luck or a fat wallet. Considering how short the original story was - the only respite was the harder difficulties. The way the game was stacked, you either had to grind for hours and hours for better loot, or pay for it - instead of having a natural progression curve, the game was slanted in a way that favored spending money over gameplay.
Once again, this effected me. Dead Space 3 was a game that allowed you to pay money to make weapons, therefore making it easier. Think about the message your sending. This is something you'd normally be able to tone in an options menu - difficulty. I dont think its far off to say that features like difficulty settings could be sold to you.
It didn't need to be in the game, and effects it as a whole. It was a system you never have to use because its already available in game - the only thing it does for you is allows you to go through a single player game easier. It doesn't add anything to the game, it detracts. Not only was this something that had to be programmed (which takes time, money, and development resources that could have been spent elsewhere), but its useless. "They're just trying to make money back" isn't a good excuse when they wasted a chunk of their budget to begin with. You also make is sound as if selling a game that has already been franchised is some HUGE risk that the developers are taking, and releasing because they truly love videogames at a loss for them. They make profit off of these games - especially with EA and their huge marketing push. Especially games that are sequels.
You have to be either apathetic towards consumers or just blind to defend a practice such as this. A full priced game thats trying to ring more money out of consumers without justification from a mechanical standpoint hurts the game industry. Plenty of games this generation have shown us that a developer will take any chance to nickle and dime us, and allowing them to do so with sentiments like "Who cares, it doesn't matter" just allow developers to get ballsier and ballsier with what they will cut out then resell to us.
This has effected us as a whole, this has sullied products many of us have purchased off of good faith, and is good enough ground for us to complain. If you want to act like its not an issue, thats on you. But don't say that it "doesn't effect people." Because it kind of does. And has. And, if at any point in the future, some game requires you to pay $5 to unlock the "Hard" setting of a game, I just want to point out that I told ya so.