Poll: Why weapons should be sold as microtransactions/DLC.

[Caffeine Rage]

I think it really depends on the game for me.

Take for example, Team Fortress 2. You're able to buy weapons both in packages as well as single weapons. But, you have several other ways to get those weapons outside of the store. You're able to craft them, get them randomly as a drop, trade for them, or (for the old class update weapons) get them via achievements. This allows players to get basically any weapon in the game pretty quickly, making the store a weapon option more for the very unlucky or impatient. To me, this makes having the store not as big of issue as a game which offers weapon DLC packs which are side grades, but no way to obtain them other than buying that DLC pack.

Seeing someone beat me because he bought a DLC pack for a powerful gun is very frustrating. If it happens often, it ruins a game for me. I don't like losing because I didn't pay for extra bits of DLC.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

How about we make a balanced game instead. I'm just saying.

 

[Bostur]

I very much disagree that weapons should be available as DLCs. Weapons are not content on their own, they are a gameplay mechanic. As a gameplay mechanic they need to be designed to fit the game they appear in. Buying weapons in a video game is like buying extra money in Monopoly, it defeats the purpose of playing the game.

Adding weapons as DLC will create some balance issues that are almost impossible to solve. Either the weapon isn't needed making it mostly useless as a DLC, or it is needed and game design will suffer. In one case the ones who don't own the weapon will get a worse playing experience, in the other case it is the ones who own the weapon that suffers from this.

 

[F4LL3N]

You're able to craft them, get them randomly as a drop, trade for them, or (for the old class update weapons) get them via achievements. This allows players to get basically any weapon in the game pretty quickly, making the store a weapon option more for the very unlucky or impatient. To me, this makes having the store not as big of issue as a game which offers weapon DLC packs which are side grades, but no way to obtain them other than buying that DLC pack.

This would be even better. I've only played TF2 a few times, but they seem to have gotten it right.

 

[Stalydan]

I'm not bothered. As Extra Credits said, selling power is wrong. If you sell something like a machine gun that has a higher rate of fire than other, then you reduce the fire power or the magazine (or any of the stats). Balance it out because if you're being sold a weapon then chances are you want to use it from the start.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Whenever you can easily delineate two groups, Mp5K Group will call Gunless Group "Poor Noobs" and Gunless will call them "Elitist Moneyburners".

Microtransactions need to be invisible (or at least multiple choices of visibility) and not "pay to win".

If you saw the absoloute hell that the Halo hat caused in TF2, or the Portal 2 hats, then you'd know why even aesthetic DLC needs to be contained.

 

[Kaymish]

I dont see as content they are tools to be used when consuming a games content and if you are giving the tools to some players and not others you have an issue because players are going to be pissed balanced or not and if you piss of the players they are going to trade the game in early putting it back in circulation faster and unlikely to buy your product first hand

best saving DLC for actual content like maps and missions and if the dev has fucked up at monetising their game well that's their own damn fault

 

[The Lugz]

let's break this down for a moment and have a look at a few angles

i play crysis 2 multi-player, ive played cod, ive played battlefield, ive played a few oldschool shooters and honestly if you have one weapon versus another different weapon in 'x' given circumstance
'somone' always has the advantage due to clip size, spray cone, sights, power drop, ect

because the two weapons are slightly different however you always see in these multiplayer games the same 4-5 names end up at the top of the scoreboards

what i'm saying here is if they airent selling free neuclear strikes, who gives a crap if they sell a gun with +0.01% fire rate and reload speed?

it's as rediculus at the people that argue discreet network cards theoretically stabilize network latency 50 nanoseconds faster and therefore get your attack on the line faster
which is true, on a case by case basis, but human reaction-times are OVER a thousand times slower than that and fatigue after every round

yet you still get better over time? that's because you learn the maps and your enemy's tactics
it's not really anything to do with speed when you know where to be what to do and how to hide / reload in peace so you're always ready to slaughter

you have to look at these games and realize this is x number versus y number in z situation therefore the outcome will be blah blah blah assuming everyone plays perfectly
and people love to believe they are the optimal player ( nobody is )
therefore combat tactics will have a larger role in your survivability and or victory / points / perks than who has a minorly improved gun

that said, if the minorly improved gun is less than 10% of the value of the game i really dont see why people would deny themselves a new shiny toy

dlc only becomes a requirement to purchase if all of the following are true:
your game is balanced around the item ( ie guns )
your item is fairly expensive, thus making some people not buy it due to it being an insult or whatever. ( ie, some of the community wont have it so you can reasonably assume you will have it and they wont if you buy it )
your game is competitive in nature
the item for sale massively alters the balance of power ( and i mean you have time for example in a shooter game to feel someone shooting your back turn around and smash them instantly with it, things that break the game in other-words )

if anyone can think of a serious example, then that is a failed dlc system
a good dlc system should make the game more fun, add items like flags you can stab people's corpses with that say 'lol owned' or other things that are fun, and they should be relatively cheap, so people buy them because that's the point it's a premium feature to add fun and give the developers a few extra pennies

if you unbalance your game to try to force people to pay silly prices, you may end up loosing customers, if you create an ever-positive environment, then you'll never alienate anyone and you'll still make a bit more cash from your die-hard fans

 

[F4LL3N]

So if you went on to Black Ops right now and there was a bolt-action scopeless rifle for $2, you would be pissed?

Or if you went on to Halo Reach and there was a lightsaber for $2.50, you'd be pissed?

I'd be over the moon. More content that you otherwise not get.

I don't see how anyone's missing out. If you really want it, then it's only a few bucks. It's not a game breaker (although I really want to emphasize balance).

 

[Blackpapa]

Hey guys, I just thought up of a new great rule for the World Chess Federation chess games. You can buy a pawn for 5000 USD and a knight for 20 000 USD. You can place it on rows 1&2 or 7&8 depending on which side you started on.

Great idea, am I right?

 

[MercurySteam]

The Firepower Pack for Mass Effect 2 was utterly worth it. The Equalizer Pack is only some crappy armor for Shepard and the Aegis Pack is a new sniper rifle and a great set of armor but again, is only really for Shepard. The Firepower Pack however comes with a new heavy pistol, shotgun and assault rifle for the entire team to use and are superior to almost all the other weapons you'll pick up in the game.

 

[luckshot]

Okay the golden rule is not to handicap anyone, because it becomes the one with the biggest wallet, racks up the most kills. I'm alright with DLC having shotguns n' other crap weapons etc.

exactly, if buying these superior weapons is the only way to get them, then you end up handicapping those that dont want to or cant spend that money

also a couple of weeks ago extra credits had a video on this...though some one else may have already mentioned it
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3689-Microtransactions

 

[Tr3mbl3Tr3mbl3]

Watch Extra Credits's episode on micro-transactions, located on this very site. Rule #1 for micro-transactions: DON'T SELL POWER.

Oh, you could argue that the weapons they would be selling are completely balanced and in no way could affect the game-play; you're wrong. Any reasonable assortment of weapons available as a sale will have to have at least one that is innately more powerful than the others. Or possibly weaker, but that would defeat the purpose of buying it in the first place.

Why would you spend money on a weapon that isn't more powerful than the ones you already have for free? It's stupid, no matter the situation, micro-transactions and DLC should be for convenience, additional but non-essential content, and aesthetics or customization.

Ideally you are buying that weapon's uniqueness not its power, lets use Call Of Duty for example; lets say there are three initial machine guns, one with a higher damage output but a slower firing speed, one with a higher firing speed but slower reload speed, and an averaged one, but then they release a new one it has a faster reloading speed but a lower damage output. Keep this bearing in mind my post above about being able to attain such things by other means besides buying with money e.g. random drops or rewards points, If I wanted a machine gun with a fast reload but didn't want to grind reward points for it or leave it to chance with random drops and now I were to buy this new machine gun would it be buying power?

*you could argue that people would not be used to fighting people with machine guns with a faster reload and have a psuedo-advantage but it goes away once people get used to it*

Yes, that would be buying power. Suddenly you have a complete revamping of the balancing scale that the initial LMGs (I'm assuming by "machine gun" you were referring to LMGs simply because they would benefit the most from faster reload times) did not have, and in the grand scheme of things that creates several problems.

The first is the leveling curve. Okay, let's say you start with 3 "machine guns" at Level 4 (the level you are permitted to make custom classes in Black Ops), and unless I'm wrong you actually do: the MP5K, M16, and the RPK. Basically, at least in Black Ops, all three of the guns are complete garbage when compared to the entire list of weapons. Now a noob starting out their first multiplayer run (or even an experienced pro who just prestiged) only has these options to begin with, whereas a noob starting out with a credit card and an excess amount of money to spend on downloadable guns with even a slight edge over the other 3 will perform better and therefore level faster, assuming both "noobs" in this example had relatively similar skill levels. Faster leveling = power.

My second problem with this is again, you can't possibly create a weapon that is worth the purchase without being over-powered in the first place. Allow me to explain: again, using the same scenario, let's assume you're right and adding new weapons to Call of Duty for download will do absolutely nothing to the balancing and that 4th new weapon we've added to the initial collection of the first three is just as balanced as any weapon in the game. However, as I said that would mean the gun can't possibly be that good, and if I'm spending any amount of money on a gun (which I would stake downloadable weapons to be $2 - $5 individually or $10 packs in the US) that I'm going to stop using as soon as I unlock one that doesn't totally suck, such as the FAMAS or Galil.

And thirdly, while you could integrate the weapons into the leveling system and have them locked just as all the other wonderful weapons are initially, I can't see a scenario where thousands of people are totally okay with spending money on something they can't use until they sink 10 hours into the game. I already paid $60 for Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, and while part of the appeal of the game is unlocking new toys to kill people with, I'm fine with the weapons available and am not going to pay extra money for ones that aren't available at the press of a button. I don't speak for everybody, maybe that is acceptable for some players, but I would certainly say those players are the minority.

There are alternatives, however. For example, in Halo: Reach, a large amount of players were demanding downloadable armor permutations to customize their Spartans in more ways than already available. While I'm a strong believer in only downloading cosmetic changes "if the price is right", Bungie (or 343) could have integrated them into the map packs as a bonus incentive to purchase. Unfortunately, the coding in the original maps couldn't render new armor, which isn't something they can just fix in a patch. Going back to Call of Duty, more camo and face paint wouldn't be a bad thing, but those are also features locked for quite some time, so that's maybe not the best idea.

All in all, while the idea of downloadable weapons might seem appealing now, it's not until you get no-scoped by a 6 year-old with irresponsible parents who bought him the new weapon pack do you realize there just isn't any way to implement them without ruining another great aspect of the title. I think FPSs should stick with what they do better, and that's adding more battlefields to prove your skills in.

 

[Bostur]

The Firepower Pack for Mass Effect 2 was utterly worth it. The Equalizer Pack is only some crappy armor for Shepard and the Aegis Pack is a new sniper rifle and a great set of armor but again, is only really for Shepard. The Firepower Pack however comes with a new heavy pistol, shotgun and assault rifle for the entire team to use and are superior to almost all the other weapons you'll pick up in the game.

I don't understand those BW DLCs at all. Why is a DLC weapon cooler than the ones already in the game?

If the game is too hard for the built-in weapons, they should add extra difficulty levels instead.

 

[Cheesus333]

I wouldn't go for it myself, but it seems reasonable. As long as they were properly balanced with standard content, of course.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

the problem is that there is no way to prove they didn't remove it from the game in order to have this dlc weapon. So even if they didn't it will seem like they did and will appear to be one more thing for these people to nickle and dime us with after a $60 purchase. No other form of mass market entertainment extorts its consumer base as much as video games. If they want to do microtransactions lets have the original purchase be less of an investment.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I don't mind them so much in a single-player title. Just Cause 2 did it quite well--they were fun to play around with, but were just as powerful as the in game weapons, but just blew things up in different ways. I'm all for an overpowered gun at times, though. There is something to be said for the days of Duke Nukem 3D, DOOM, and Serious Sam where you can just have a merry stroll down the corridor into an arena blowing everything before you into chunks no larger than the chicken breast. It's the same reason that levelling up your weapons in Ratchet and Clank to the highest they'll go then doing a new game plus mode just to see how hysterically fast a boss will disappear under the strain of what appears to be a handgun with the destructive power and casualty rate of your average ICBM. Is that worth buying? Well, yeah, occasionally.

 

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

The problem is that it's too easy to accidently make something too powerful so it's unfair, or too weak so there's no point. That's what homefront did with their shotgun.
If they are well balanced then they have to be unique or there would be no reason to use them over existing weapons. But if they are too unique then you're still selling power because multiple options is a sizeable advantage, hence the rage over that BF3 retail pack. Also, weapons in most modern shooters can't be too unique due to the realistic setting.

The only remaining option nicely covered by Extra Credits is to make the guns balanced and unique but most importantly make them available otherwise. This way you're selling conveniance and fast access rather than power. TF2 is an excellent example of this.
The problem with this plan? Publishers won't like it because people might not pay. Publishers are wrong but still unwilling to take the risk.

 

[The_Yeti]

HELL NO, TERRIBLE IDEA.

They need to stop nickle and dimin' us, buying a game used to and should still mean access to said articles FULL CONTENT now or in the future, its like buying a Puzzle, to open it, attempt completion, simply to see a void remarking that you must purchase said pieces separately.

 

[PhoenixKing]

The way I look at things is that if the weapons are overpowered, than it's not fair to the players who don't have that much cash. However, if they don't have any bonuses, the person buying the weapon is getting ripped off because why by something that's the exact same as everything else?