Poll: Microtransactions vs Paid DLC

[King of Asgaard]

I can't say I like either, though I've actually bought DLC in the past, the best of which was probably the Artorias DLC for DS1.
Frankly, I think both are an indictment of the industry, since companies are more likely to cut down on disc content in favour of drip feeding the consumer more stuff down the line. However, DLC can be good if it's developed a good while after the original release as a sort of mini-sequel, while microtransactions are just there to make more money from a player. Free-to-play titles are rarely paragons of the practice, and full priced releases should be ashamed of themselves for putting in any in-game transactions that you can substitute real money for.

My views align quite closely to Jim's in this regard, I suppose.

 

[sXeth]

I'd have to go with DLC, at least the DLC that adds substance. There's obviously mediocre DLC as well. Dying Light's "Parkour Olympics" or whatever it was called, vs The Following, for instance. One added a new map bigger then the existing ones, storylines, side missions, and cars. The other added a bunch of dumb time trial missions.


Microtransactions seem to pop up either in full-priced games to start with, where unlocks are otherwise gated behind hours of play and/or horrible RNG (PvZ:GW, Overwatch, Battleborn---- I guess I'm really just familiar with this in the hero shooter genre). OR in free-to-play games where I've yet to run across them actually resembling MICRO-transactions. For instance, playing SMITE with buddies, and you run into single skins running 10-15 dollars.

 

[Orga777]

Paid DLC is fine. The problem with Paid DLC is that companies abuse that aspect and have Day 1 DLC, announce DLC packages at the same time as the game is first revealed, or have Paid DLC for something that should not be DLC at all (like hard more or whatever.) It is a joke how greedily companies carve up their games just to get as much money as possible. THAT type of practice needs to stop. However, a company that releases paid content months or even a year after release is perfectly fine and is a good thing that I don't mind paying for.

As for Microtransactions.... Yeah, no. That stuff can go to the deepest level of Hell where it belongs. Especially if it is a full-priced game. I have no tolerance for that nonsense.

 

[Scarim Coral]

If the game was free like eg Spiral Knight and Hawken then I can understand microtranaction to a certain degee (how else are they going to make money from a FREE game?). I don't forgive them if they hold the game hostage for money (in Spiral Knight, you need this very rare item to craft the next tier armor in order to proceed the story) or pay 2 win.

DLC I am willing to slide since at the end of the day, it is up to you wheather to buy it or not as you already paid the core game and it continue to run without the dlc.

 

[veloper]

DLC can mean anything from downloadable expansion packs to locked content on disc to tiny cosmetics.

I understand microtransactions to mean pay walls, as in pay up or grind hard, if you want to continue.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I honestly kind of like DLC in the story-expansion form. RAAM's Shadow, Left Behind, The Old Hunters, love that stuff.

My only problem with it is purely personal: I've started buying Season Passes. Sometimes, I don't mind it, paying for all of Life Is Strange up front, don't regret it but I didn't really need the season pass for Gears 3 *just* for RAAM's Shadow considering I ended up paying for a bunch of multiplayer stuff I wasn't gonna use and I bought the Season Passes for Assassin's Creed Syndicate and Fallout 4 and I haven't touched the DLC in those games, just haven't felt the drive.

That was a whole bunch of useless information.

I like story expansions, don't care for anything else, to put a nice bow on it.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Paid DLC if done right, no question. Like the expansions for Fallout and Borderlands.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Aren't micro's also just, y'know, downloadable content that's paid for? The distinctions blur, especially with some games.

...aside from semantics: depends on the game. Generally I'm all for a few major expansions, but with a game like Elite Dangerous I can understand them wishing to offer cosmetic DLC such as ship skin packs or unique single skins (or bobbleheads and alphabet letters for the dashboard... but fuck both of those right out the airlock), to augment and ostensibly help fund the ongoing project.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Not a fan of either but they can be done right unfortunately its rarely how can we keep improving the game and still receive money to allow us to do so and more how do we scam as much money as possible from the people before they catch on to us? At least that is what it seems like.

I prefer paying for the game and getting everything for the game then. If the DLC later is a substantial expansion to an already full product I do not mind as long as it is priced accordingly.

If the DLC/Microtransactions are purely cosmetic and allow them to keep supporting the game possibly adding new modes/levels/characters for free later then while I am not a huge fan I tolerate them and honestly am not to bothered if I thought the initial product wss already substantial.

I also dont mind DLC if its say 10 months or more after the games release in fact I like that they are supporting it so far after its release but unfortunately its usually all front loaded along with a season pass for maximum mulla. Then of course there is always that wonder of how much it impacted how much you would have got if there was no DLC i.e was it ripped from the game to be resold to you.

 

[CaitSeith]

Ideally none, but the lesser of both evils is paid DLC. The way microtransactions is being used is more scummy nowadays.

 

[CaitSeith]

Aren't micro's also just, y'know, downloadable content that's paid for? The distinctions blur, especially with some games.

No when you add random pack element to the microtransactions (at least with paid DLC you know what you'll get). That's just gambling real money for virtual content.

 

[josemlopes]

People need to think a bit more about what they are posting, this isnt 2008 anymore.

Rainbow Six Siege is the perfect example of good DLC/Microtransactions, you get meaty DLC for free because certain people are ok with spending money for some extra that they find worth their money (skins and a two week advance with the new characters classes).

I, for example, am not one of those that would buy that content, but if I made a shitload more money in real life I probably would buy for the two week advance because the cost to me would be less, therefore worth it. Still, while I dont make that money and dont buy that content I can still get the new maps and characters for free. If that DLC was paid (maps plus character classes) and the skins were free then I would have to actually spend more money on the game to get the maps and characters because that is what actually matters. The skins and two week advance are basicly bonus, content that no one would actually miss if it was never part of the release plan.

So yeah, I guess people here prefer to having to spend more money on the game for the same content.

I know that microtransactions have a bad rep (because for a long time they were real shit), but recently they have started to be much more understandable, progress in the games are kept at a nice pace and they either sell a shortcut for content that is earned through normal play or sell really unnecessary stuff, while supporting the game with some big free content.

Things that are okay: (basically things here that take months of extra development, and can't logically be earned in game)

Map packs
Expansion packs. (new levels, characters, story missions, etc)

If this is paid then you might as well release a patch to uninstall the game automaticly, Red Orchestra 2 kind of managed to smartly get around it but in most cases all it ends up doing is dividing the player base, the new levels will always be less played and eventually no one plays them because no one is willing to wait long times looking for players.

Red Orchestra 2 let anyone with the base game play the expansion although they were limited to only play the most basic class, yet in that game classes have player limits so it was normal even in the base game to have most people playing with the most basic class.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I have seen 2 "great" DLC so far in the entire history of games that I have played so far.

And that is good enough for me to convince me that somewhere, somehow, there is tiny impossibly small chance of something like that happening again.

I have yet to see Microtransactions save anything, other than game publisher's wallets. F*** microtransactions.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Oh don't encourage the publishers. If i complete a game and still demand a fresh experience from it, i just do a shot of absinthe in each eyeball, then replay the game on hardest difficulty upside down with a cat on my face! Freeeeshhh!!! It may cost more in the long term, but at least i won't be sharing the experience with hundreds of thousands of entitled tit-nibblers sucking at the buttons for psychological sustenance as their mum's too busy hittin the gin. Oopsi, went off track a bit. Was there a track? Where am i again?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I've never had a problem with DLC as long as a.) it was something started after the original release and b.) It was not 20 dollars for two hours of additional content.

If I like an experience, there's a chance I'd like to continue that experience. I have no problem for companies getting paid for doing extra work.

The problem with DLCs is that the idea is marred by horrible practices that designers have done. On Disc DLC and the like. Incidents like These Games [http://disclockedcontent.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_on-disc_DLC] need to go die in a fire.

But if you got the band back together to create something new a six months after the fact? We got ourselves a deal.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

There is a cap on how much worthwhile DLC a company can release. There isn't anything even remotely like that for Microtransactions. In my opinion good DLC encourages better games like the expansion packs that Bethesda puts out, bad dlc encourages lazyness(re-releasing the same maps for every single new COD game over and over forever). BUT Microtransactions encourage worse games with things locked off from the player from the start, I also think that it encourages bad things like lazy terrible skins(see every microtransaction in CS:GO for example).

In a DLC dominated environment you're going to see more content because that's what people will pay upfront for, in microtransactions you're going to see endless gambling, timers and grinding shuffling along in a trench-coat trying to disguise themselves as "gameplay"(see pretty much every f2p mobile game ever made).

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It's kind of hard to answer because the actual definition of microtransaction has become rather vague at the moment and expanded to include paid cosmetic items, something that used to be called DLC. I'm honestly not too bothered by cosmetic items in most cases, since I don't really play a lot of multiplayer games and don't really care about cosmetic items in single player games. Perhaps if it were an RPG, or a game like Terraria/Starbound where you would expect it to come with the game, then I might get a bit annoyed, but otherwise, it's more on the minor side of cynical business.

However, if the microtransactions have any form of gameplay utility, especially if it's actual currency, then whoever is responsible for it can go fuck themselves with a handful of broken glass.

I'm also not too fond of the luck based purchases either. It just feels way to slimy to make people blatantly gamble for their meaningless cosmetics. However, I'm less outraged by such things, since it doesn't really effect me. I don't buy cosmetic items, nor will I ever gamble real money for virtual tat. I look at it the same way I look at psychics, or people who commit religious scams. Sure, the people doing it are assholes, but the victims are utter cretins, so I can't muster much outrage.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.

I'm not surprised. Bethesda tried than in an era where DLC was new and not well received in most cases. They also tried it with stuff that should have been in the game functionally. Horse armor? Come on.

 

[Trunkage]

I was going to say that the DLC needs to be substantial, priced correctly, meaningful and clearly not cut content. But then I remember some good examples that don't fit. Dark Souls 1 had cut content DLC but was good. The initial run of Payday 2 DLC was not substantial but I think price fairly and even if you didn't pay but a friend did you could still play with them.

 

[springheeljack]

I'm against DLC even when it is good I dont like it I feel like they left out something especially if they release a disc with all of the content in one single package. To me it is always more reason not to buy the game at launch. For example look at Mass Effect 3 it has so much content that I will probably never get to experience.