Poll: Microtransactions vs Paid DLC

[Bob_McMillan]

So recently, we have seen more and more games, primarily ones with a multiplayer component, introduce microtransactions. Many of these games have microtransaction systems that are unquestionably bullshit, such as BLOPS 3's Supply Drop system. I actually feel bad for the CoD community, I have quite a lot of friends who jumped ship and are now playing BF4.

Other games are in sort of a gray area. Many of last year's games as well some of this year's have had microtransactions, but also offered free DLC. Such examples are Rainbow Six Siege, Halo 5, Uncharted 4, Battleborn (sort of), Overwatch, and the upcoming Gears of War 4. For some of these, it is just assumed that a season pass was traded for a microtransaction system, while others like Halo 5 and (I think) Gears 4 stated outright that microtransactions are responsible for free DLC.

So my questions are:

1. Do you think microtransactions and all the negative things it brings to a game are okay if it leads to free DLC?

2. Would you like the gaming industry to move toward games with free DLC and microtransactions?

 

[Saelune]

Hate microtransactions. Never seen it used well, not once.

I liked the old way of expansions. I find it funny that Bethesda, who was one of the first to do microtransactions, who got super criticized for it and actually stopped, is one of the few doing big meaty DLC expansions.

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I think I hate DLC marginally less. At least with DLC you generally get a decent amount of content for a one time fee, whereas with microtransactions they wall off content behind outrageous grinds which can only be (reasonably) overcome by paying fees at each hurdle. Basically, I'd rather be screwed hard once than screwed more often. However, "Fuck 'em both" best approximates my real feelings, so I'm voting for that.

 

[BrawlMan]

I hate both. There are some exceptions, but at the end of the day, just don't try and screw over your customers. This makes game more of a hassle, less fun to play, and just eats memory space on the console. Anyone remember when certain Western developers or publishers were crying about used games being the death of the industry, but would make a whole bunch of front and back door dealing with GameStop? And guess what they were doing; DLC, Microstransactions, and Season Passes. It's even worse if it's a season pass for single player content and not multiplayer.

The hypocrisy is still strong within these guys. Gutting a game of its content and locked behind a huge paywall is no fun. So much that anyone, regardless if they're on a budget or not, will not touch your game at a discount or buy it used. It's like Jim Sterling said 3 years ago (paraphrasing) " If the industry does crash, it's not because of used games, but shitheads trying to screw over the consumers and cry wolf!" If a crash ever happened, the publishers and developers would have no one to blame but themselves,. We're starting to see this practice a bit less, but it is sill a huge problem among the big 4 assholes. Can you guess which ones I'm talking about?

Oh, and fuck the Amiibos, Skylanders, and Dinsey InfinityI know Disney cancelled its Infinity line, but fuck them anyway for trying to follow an already dubious market. They had decent game studios, and only shut them down for a quick buck. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot..

 

[MysticSlayer]

I prefer expansions and DLC. Yeah, they're more expensive, but at least they come with some content that gives a noticeable return on the investment. Microtransactions tend to be either too miniscule to care or an awful way to play with player psychology as they question whether or not the grind is worth it.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Hate microtransactions. Never seen it used well, not once.

Really? Are you disregarding cosmetic micro-transactions and fair free-to-play game (World of Tanks, etc) and simply talking about traditional (Pay to play) games, or do you find those two types crap too?

 

[Saelune]

Hate microtransactions. Never seen it used well, not once.

Really? Are you disregarding cosmetic micro-transactions and fair free-to-play game (World of Tanks, etc) and simply talking about traditional (Pay to play) games, or do you find those two types crap too?

Don't like paid cosmetics, and Ive never played a truly fulfilling free to play game. Some are more serviceable than others. Warframe is probably the highest quality F2P game Ive played, but it certainly makes it difficult for those unwilling to pay. Mostly by limiting inventory space.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I want to pay for the full game once and only once. There have been some good examples of DLC but trying to track down DLC a decade down the road is a big turn off for me. This is one of the reasons I have kind of checked out of modern gaming.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Some dlc has been worth it. No microtransactions ever added anything to a game, they tend to act as a substitute for grinding most of the time. Due to that, I pick payed dlc with the caveat that I'm talking about the big expansion kind of dlc.

 

[Aerosteam]

Expansions > DLC > Microtransactions is what I think most people would go for.

Anything but microtransactions please. It stinks of the mobile market.

 

[The Lunatic]

Fuck 'em both.

Expansions or bust.

A game having microtransations, loot crates or any of that bullshit is just a "Nope" for me.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Neither.

Expansions. Remember them things?

You buy a game. Then if it does well they make an expansion. As its own product. In a box and everything. I really dislike the 'bits and bobs' approach to DLC for most games that a lot of companies seem to do when I'd rather pay out a larger chunk of money for a bigger, more coherent addition to the original product.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

I'm fine with Microtransactions... so long as they're in a free-to-play game (and aren't overtly expensive - I've bought very few cosmetics and weapons in Warframe for a reason) and so long as those microtransactions don't gate anything significant behind them. Like, if I can drop 5 bucks to get Super Awesome Weapon but I can also build that weapon myself, that's ok. It's kinda the whole point of Microtransactions, really. In a paid game, I've already bought the game, so stacking Microtransactions ontop - even if it's something I can earn in game - is a big, hairy 'No'. I liked Dead Space 3, but it's the perfect example of 'AAA Devs Need To Fuck Off With Microtransactions'.

DLC, on the other hand, depends on the type of DLC being offered, and the scale of it. Weapons, gear, extra stats, etc. should all be free, regardless of size. Maps depends entirely on the scale - a very large map pack I can understand being sold (it's a lot of work making maps), but individual maps or maps tied to expansion packs should be free. Micro-expansions or side-stories depends more on the approach by the developer more than anything, and what the contents of those things entail. Expansion packs or major DLC stories I prefer paying for, even if the developer puts them out for free.

Also, as a side thing... I really feel there should be an expiry date on how long DLC is actually 'paid'. Like, after a while the developers/publishers just go 'We stopped working on this thing years ago, so just have all the shit for free'. Probably a bunch of reasons why that doesn't happen more often, but still, it'd be nice if you didn't have to fork over cash for a game that hasn't been touched in 8+ years.

 

[happyninja42]

Eh, don't really care. Most microtransactions are cosmetic, and I'm fine with them selling bling to people who want bling. If it's stuff that gives you an edge in the game, well I still really don't care much. I don't play competitive online stuff, so any P2W stuff is irrelevant to my gaming experience.

And DLC is usually just more content. A new area to play in, new skills/powers, new stories. Why is that a problem? I was willing to pay money for the actual game itself for those very reasons, I see no reason to treat DLC any different.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd rather have paid DLC than microtransactions, but only if that DLC is robust and large enough to warrant another purchase.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

I'm actually fine with microtransactions, if people want to blow their money on it that's their issue

What I really can't stand is random microtransactions, that seems a lot more skeevy to me. It's like gambling, and I can see people getting addicted and blowing all their money on "just one more pack".

 

[thewatergamer]

Paid DLC, Its just a much more simple and less complicated way of doing things, introducing micotransactions with the promise of "free DLC" (Hello OverWatch) is already Bullshit because Splatoon did the exact same thing WITHOUT the microtransactions, and fine OverWatch isn't Splatoon, but the problem with the idea is simple, how often should the free updates of content come out? What happens when people stop buying the microtransactions because they already have everything they want? Its not like you can just turn around and say "oh well, now we are introducing Paid DLC" because that would go back on the promise. How often should free DLC be expected to come out? (And don't give me that "gamerz are too entitled and a game company should be given the benefit of the doubt, they dug themselves into this mess when they did microtransactions)

DLC is just a much simpler way of doing things, the game comes out, and you buy what the game contains, if they release paid DLC later, whatever you weren't expecting anything else. Hell, I think the absolute best buisness model a game can do is releasing a steady combination of paid and free DLC, alot like Battleborn is doing, new characters and competitive maps will be free (with season pass holders getting a week head start on characters) and co-op missions will be paid. Done

 

[Michel Henzel]

Microtransactions can go right and fuck off as they are rarely, if ever, actually mirco. If I think microtransaction, I think of something that costs like 1 or 2 bucks, and at the most like 5 bucks.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I am a little on the fence, but leaning toward preferring DLC. Using GTA Online as an example, the Shark Card system was a great idea in theory. Having future content free for all and the whole ONline component supported by real money purchasing. But in reality, there is no actual new content. The only "new" stuff are vehicles, and most of those have been exorbitantly priced. They don't add cheap cars, they add super expensive ones....so that players by shark cards.

The latest "updates" aren't even new cars...they're the SAME old cars (Tornado and Sabre) BUT you have to spend $500k on them now JUST so you can see what mods you can put on them. What's happened quite evidently is that they are creating content to sell shark cards, not adding actual new content. There haven't been any new heists since the original 5 and Lamar's mission chain were the only new missions added. It's dire. I would gladly pay $10 for a chunk more content, more heists, more things to do. But it won't happen...the game makes so much money but they won't reinvest it to make more, just pocket it and take as much as they can get.

With DLCs however, Map packs are utterly deplorable. Any company that charges for maps is effectively splitting the community into the haves and have-nots. It is worse than pay-to-win in my eyes.

I would prefer DLC packs. At least then you can choose to pay or not based on whether or not you believe it's worth buying. With MTs they shove it in your face, make acquiring things normally a grind and rarely add genuine new content.