Microtransactions Come to Call of Duty

[Korten12]

If only Activision put as much effort into the single player campaign as they do for multiplayer, I might consider purchasing an iteration of Call of Duty. I hate online shooters, which is going to make this next part weird...

Alternatively, if they dropped the single player entirely and sold the multiplayer at a reduced price, I would consider buying. Their campaigns are crap. It sounds strange, but I'm just being honest.

Actually Blops 2 had a very good Single-player with some interesting moral choices through the game and smedal of honor gameome that are given to you in the vein of Spec Ops the line where it's doesn't tell you outright what all the choices are but you make them in game without pressing A or B. not that there isn't choices like that.

It's weird for me since I'm not only prior service (nothing special, just the 82nd), I'm also a fan of non-fiction military books. If any of these developers had read anything like Inside Delta Force, Spy Dust or Lone Survivor, they would realize that there are incredible true stories that would have been far easier to adapt into a game, as opposed to constantly using end-of-the-world scenarios. Unfortunately, I did play Medal of Honor: Warfighter, and it was a terrible, convoluted "interpretation" of what happened to Neil Roberts, a Navy SEAL.


Not to sound antagonistic, but, having never played BLOPS2, I'm going to guess that the main theme is an end-of-the-world scenario. Is that correct or am I way off mark?

Depends I guess. It's more like the end of first world countries dominance and depending on the ending could happen or not. It's a bit more grey than other shooters. In that the enemy does bad stuff but you as we'll and its kind of the main characters fault he became a villain.

It has the whole 99% vs 1% vibe.

 

[Frezzato]

snip

You know, what you did just now was pretty bad ass. You gave a general synopsis and managed not to spoil anything. Okay, I'll have to check out BLOPS then. But, uh...I have yet to play Spec Ops, which I've been meaning to buy. I'm running a little behind. Damn, I still haven't even finished The Walking Dead.

 

[Bindal]

snip

You know, what you did just now was pretty bad ass. You gave a general synopsis and managed not to spoil anything. Okay, I'll have to check out BLOPS then. But, uh...I have yet to play Spec Ops, which I've been meaning to buy. I'm running a little behind. Damn, I still haven't even finished The Walking Dead.

I suggest Blops 2 first, it's probably shorter AND SpecOps might not want you to play other MMS for a bit.

 

[The Lunatic]

These microtransations would be really great, if we were talking about a free to play game.

However, given we're talking about a game with a season pass on top of a $60/£55 ($81 BTW.) game, it's hard not to see these as a bit questionable.

I mean, I can't help but think, if you're charging me $80, the least you could do is throw in some crosshairs and decals.

But, maybe that's just me.

 

[Xyliss]

Haha I can't wait for the credit card bills of the parents of the 12 year olds to come through and find out they out thousands of pounds.

 

[Bindal]

These microtransations would be really great, if we were talking about a free to play game.

However, given we're talking about a game with a season pass on top of a $60/£55 ($81 BTW.) game, it's hard not to see these as a bit questionable.

I mean, I can't help but think, if you're charging me $80, the least you could do is throw in some crosshairs and decals.

But, maybe that's just me.

They already did give you quite a few of those. If you press C (PC, can't say about consoles) while being over a gun or press O (again, PC) while over a Red Dot, ACOQ, EOTech or Hybrid Sight, you can customise those and there are quite a few of them in every case.
Some of them are rather weird to look at (like a Treyarch Icon, a giant cross or a heart), but some are good (e.g. a circle or a 'ranger'-style)

And those are just a bunch of those in a small back as bonus for 2$ one of their graphicers did while he might had a bit too much spare-time after release.

I would please ask that nobody purchase this so that gaming companies do not get the wrong message from this, though.

Too late - Killing Floor sold about 1 million of this kind of DLC a year ago. (And nobody cared back then despite them being so immensily successful). And TF2 kind of build half it's game around it before going F2P entirely.
Also, what would the messange be? "People are willing to spend an extra buck or two on cosmetics as DLC"? As said, already happening in quite a few games that sell single skins or small skinpacks as DLC. Hardly a new messange and hardly a bad one, either.
It's sounds bad because it is now called "Microtransaction" for some weird reason despite there being no difference to normal cosmetic-only DLC in any form.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Fallacy. Activision's DLC is running from 1 to 5 dollars max. EA's DLC runs from 10-20 dollars max. There isn't a comparison.

Secondarily, we darn well can and will continue to argue gamers don't want this kind of abuse even if legions of COD fans buy into this, because WE DON'T. The fans of COD are Apple Drones, buying the same product year after year with a new curve and a new whistle. Of course 'sold' demographics will buy. What remains to be seen is if those OUTSIDE that demographic will buy in. I hope not. This sounds innocuous enough but it sends signals to publishers they can bend us over.

 

[Bindal]

This sounds innocuous enough but it sends signals to publishers they can bend us over.

I have to ask again:
What [http://store.steampowered.com/dlc/1250/]
of this [http://store.steampowered.com/dlc/49520/]
is new? [http://store.steampowered.com/dlc/55230/]
And why is it out of the sudden "bad" when a year ago, nobody cared?

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

These microtransations would be really great, if we were talking about a free to play game.

However, given we're talking about a game with a season pass on top of a $60/£55 ($81 BTW.) game, it's hard not to see these as a bit questionable.

I mean, I can't help but think, if you're charging me $80, the least you could do is throw in some crosshairs and decals.

But, maybe that's just me.

Except there are already a WIDE variety of custom sights and camos already built into the base game. If the only thing they stick to is selling cosmetic items, there really is no problem.

 

[Eppy (Bored)]

You know, people are going to eat this up like mad, CoD players will love this. The important thing for the industry to remember is that Call of Duty players are not the same market segment as the rest of us. Some of us might play CoD, but their core audience is really the disturbingly large number of people who basically only play shooters like that. Micro transactions are even appropriate for this kind of game - and let's face it, single player in these games is basically a formality, it's no secret that the market is in multiplayer. The important thing is that the rest of the gaming universe doesn't want them. They can HAVE CoD; as long as I don't start seeing prompts to buy more Paragon/Renegade points in the next Bioware game or whatever I'll be happy.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Activision must be getting jelly at all the attention EA is getting again. lol

Need to do the same thing as the company everyone is lambasting!

Microtransaction for everything... yay...
/I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Bindal]

Activision must be getting jelly at all the attention EA is getting again. lol

Need to do the same thing as the company everyone is lambasting!

Microtransaction for everything... yay...
/I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Okay, I have to keep asking:
WHY IS THIS SUDDENLY CALLED "MICROTRANSACTIONS"? We got this kind of DLC for years now. And how did we call it? DLC! Why in the name of F*** do you suddenly decide to call it something else?

 

[DTWolfwood]

Activision must be getting jelly at all the attention EA is getting again. lol

Need to do the same thing as the company everyone is lambasting!

Microtransaction for everything... yay...
/I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Okay, I have to keep asking:
WHY IS THIS SUDDENLY CALLED "MICROTRANSACTIONS"? We got this kind of DLC for years now. And how did we call it? DLC! Why in the name of F*** do you suddenly decide to call it something else?

Microtransaction was at one point a term used exclusively for F2P MMOs. What you generally paid for are costumes, game currency, etc. They call it microtransaction because you can usually buy it multiple time in many small transactions.

Downloadable content is generally accepted as content for the game that extends play time for the game, i.e. new missions, levels, maps, guns.

However, it really is just semantics. Both terms are interchangeable in my humble opinion. I call it microtransactions when what you buy is cosmetic, it doesn't do anything to the core of the game. I call it DLC when its a whole new item (content) introduced into the game.

Maps = DLC, Gun Camo = MTA, Guns = DLC, Fake money = MTA etc.

 

[Bindal]

Activision must be getting jelly at all the attention EA is getting again. lol

Need to do the same thing as the company everyone is lambasting!

Microtransaction for everything... yay...
/I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Okay, I have to keep asking:
WHY IS THIS SUDDENLY CALLED "MICROTRANSACTIONS"? We got this kind of DLC for years now. And how did we call it? DLC! Why in the name of F*** do you suddenly decide to call it something else?

Microtransaction was at one point a term used exclusively for F2P MMOs. What you generally paid for are costumes, game currency, etc. They call it microtransaction because you can usually buy it multiple time in many small transactions.

Downloadable content is generally accepted as content for the game that extends play time for the game, i.e. new missions, levels, maps, guns.

However, it really is just semantics. Both terms are interchangeable in my humble opinion. I call it microtransactions when what you buy is cosmetic, it doesn't do anything to the core of the game. I call it DLC when its a whole new item (content) introduced into the game.

Maps = DLC, Gun Camo = MTA, Guns = DLC, Fake money = MTA etc.

Then why did everyone called the purchasable DLC-packs for Killing Floor "DLC", which are PURELY cosmetic and didn't add anything to the game besides for new usable skins? Because they were DLC.
Other example, which I also posted above, are the mayority of Borderlands DLCs. They are ALSO only single skins for the existing characters. What does everyone call them? DLC.

So, that still leaves the question why - with no apparent reason - it is now called "Microtransactions" despite it being the exact same thing as the usual cosmetic DLCs we have now for YEARS? I don't see a difference between these DLCs and those coming for CoD tomorrow.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Activision must be getting jelly at all the attention EA is getting again. lol

Need to do the same thing as the company everyone is lambasting!

Microtransaction for everything... yay...
/I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Okay, I have to keep asking:
WHY IS THIS SUDDENLY CALLED "MICROTRANSACTIONS"? We got this kind of DLC for years now. And how did we call it? DLC! Why in the name of F*** do you suddenly decide to call it something else?

Microtransaction was at one point a term used exclusively for F2P MMOs. What you generally paid for are costumes, game currency, etc. They call it microtransaction because you can usually buy it multiple time in many small transactions.

Downloadable content is generally accepted as content for the game that extends play time for the game, i.e. new missions, levels, maps, guns.

However, it really is just semantics. Both terms are interchangeable in my humble opinion. I call it microtransactions when what you buy is cosmetic, it doesn't do anything to the core of the game. I call it DLC when its a whole new item (content) introduced into the game.

Maps = DLC, Gun Camo = MTA, Guns = DLC, Fake money = MTA etc.

Then why did everyone called the purchasable DLC-packs for Killing Floor "DLC", which are PURELY cosmetic and didn't add anything to the game besides for new usable skins? Because they were DLC.
Other example, which I also posted above, are the mayority of Borderlands DLCs. They are ALSO only single skins for the existing characters. What does everyone call them? DLC.

So, that still leaves the question why - with no apparent reason - it is now called "Microtransactions" despite it being the exact same thing as the usual cosmetic DLCs we have now for YEARS? I don't see a difference between these DLCs and those coming for CoD tomorrow.

Its possibly because they are advertised and sold out of game that they call them DLC. Most microtransaction items aren't advertised outside of the game itself.

In this case, Activision isn't releasing a "Gun camo pack" or "Flags pack". It's just something they shoe horn into the game. I'd doubt its something they want to blatantly advertise for. If they do, this would probably be called DLC. lol

Again its semantics.

 

[Dead Seerius]

Keep it cosmetic. This is fine. It's no different than what they did for Gears of War 3 - It wasn't a problem then and it isn't a problem now.

But the minute microtransactions *in retail-value games* become anything more than this, the gaming industry will have a problem. Here's to hoping it never comes to that.

 

[Bindal]

Its possibly because they are advertised and sold out of game that they call them DLC. Most microtransaction items aren't advertised outside of the game itself.

In this case, Activision isn't releasing a "Gun camo pack" or "Flags pack". It's just something they shoe horn into the game. I'd doubt its something they want to blatantly advertise for. If they do, this would probably be called DLC. lol

Again its semantics.

Not, it is bollocks. For no reason, someone decided to give something that already existed a new name. And for some reason, I suspect in this case Escapist and other news pages because "CoD gets Microtansactions" will generate a ton of more clicks than "CoD gets small cometic DLCs" despite both things are the exact same in this case.

But the minute microtransactions become anything more than this, the gaming industry will have a problem. Here's to hoping it never comes to that.

A lot of F2P-games are now currently knocking at your door and want to point out how they already sell gameplay-affecting content via micro-transactions. INCLUDING TF2 after it got F2P (and maybe even before)

 

[DTWolfwood]

Its possibly because they are advertised and sold out of game that they call them DLC. Most microtransaction items aren't advertised outside of the game itself.

In this case, Activision isn't releasing a "Gun camo pack" or "Flags pack". It's just something they shoe horn into the game. I'd doubt its something they want to blatantly advertise for. If they do, this would probably be called DLC. lol

Again its semantics.

Not, it is bollocks. For no reason, someone decided to give something that already existed a new name. And for some reason, I suspect in this case Escapist and other news pages because "CoD gets Microtansactions" will generate a ton of more clicks than "CoD gets small cometic DLCs" despite both things are the exact same in this case.

But the minute microtransactions become anything more than this, the gaming industry will have a problem. Here's to hoping it never comes to that.

A lot of F2P-games are now currently knocking at your door and want to point out how they already sell gameplay-affecting content via micro-transactions. INCLUDING TF2 after it got F2P (and maybe even before)

fair enough and in all likelihood true. But Micro-transaction predates DLC. So technically calling it DLC is new. What i use to call DLC was "expansion packs."

MTA was a reviled term for terrible F2P games. Now its the model of choice. I come from the older PC gaming generation and having been sucked in to that MTA cycle, (Spent $200 in 2 months in Runes of Magic) I do not want it to become mainstream and acceptable. UNLESS all games with it become F2P.

So yes the bylines will catch me nerd raging. so in all fairness you are correct as well.

 

[Dead Seerius]

But the minute microtransactions become anything more than this, the gaming industry will have a problem. Here's to hoping it never comes to that.

A lot of F2P-games are now currently knocking at your door and want to point out how they already sell gameplay-affecting content via micro-transactions. INCLUDING TF2 after it got F2P (and maybe even before)

Sorry, I should clarify - I'm not talking about F2P games. I'm talking about games you pay $60 for.

I'm aware gameplay-affecting MTs have been used in F2P games for a long time now, and while I'm still not a fan of 'pay to win', I can tolerate it far more in a game that charges a person nothing to experience.