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

[Bobby_D]

Not interested. Give me a complete game or get the hell out. I don't mind if there's a special edition set out with more stuff, but don't gimme this nickel-and-dime bullshit when DLCs are already dubious as it is.

Once again, Jack says it best: "full game or gtfo"

That would be the key. Ideally, the DLC weapon packs would be extras, as opposed to making people buy the actual weapons that one needs to play the game (which I honestly could, in some not too distant future, see Activision attempting...attempting, but not actually pulling off). But again, I personally, am not a fan of DLC. I love Mass Effect 2, and it bugs me that stuff like "Lair of the Shadow Broker" wasn't just in the game already, but that's just small potatoes...what really bugs me is Day One DLC...stuff that was already finished by the time the game came out but not included with the rest of it.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I like this idea, but I also like what Extra Credits mentioned not long ago about also making these things available to non-paying players. Sort of like what TF2 does: You can go to the store and buy the weapons, or you can get them through drops, crafting, or trading. Players get what they want with time or money--whichever they have more of to invest.

As you said, this is for the developer to get more extra cash so players can keep getting extra content. However, if it's optional, the player shouldn't feel like they are getting the shorter end of the stick. That will only make the developer look like a money-grubbing tyrant in the eyes of all the non-paying players. Plus, how are they supposed to feel welcomed and enticed to pay for the game if all they feel as a non-paying player is neglected and limited?

As EC said: If developers want to make their games free to play, they should not be terrified by the notion of people playing it for free.

And on your thing on the weapons being only "a little better": a little better is a little better. Two may not be much higher than one, but it's still the greater number. Just the fact that the weapon is different is enough for non-paying players to feel inadequate compared to the paying ones. But for it to be different AND more powerful? That's just mean. It's like giving someone a free pass to a waterpark, but never letting them out of the kiddie pool.

 

[Richardplex]

for single player games? go ahead, I won't touch them, I go for what the game is balanced around, I didn't even touch things like the Spectre Weapons unlocked after gaining 1000k credits in Mass Effect. As long as they don't take away weapons to turn them in DLC, I'm cool with them.

In multiplayer? as long as people can get them for free with enough time, and they are... you know what, what Extra Credits said, that's what I'm going to say in a less precise manner anyway.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Since when weapons in a game have been considered content? I pay for the content that had been developed for the game during the developing period, if a content that was developed during the games developing period, it should be part of the game I bought. If content is done after the release, then it can be sold as DLC. But still, if the bought gun is better than any other guns you get in the game, then it is selling power and it will destroy competitive gaming in that game.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Yes, because spending money an weaponry just to be on equal terms with everyone who bought the weaponry is a bloody brilliant idea.

 

[GonzoGamer]

They've already started separating out stuff we would normally get on the launch disc.
If they keep peeling away more things to sell later as dlc, we wont be getting much more than a demo for $60.

Trust me, most of the companies that would do a scheme like that, don't need the extra money.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

It doesn't matter if the buy-only weapons are "Balanced" or not. Simply put, having more choice gives you an advantage. I can't believe people constantly bring up, "But if you're skilled, you can beat the people who buy all of the weapons!". Have they ever considered if the player who buys all the weapons is skilled as well?

 

[Stormz]

No...just no. That's a horrible idea. Because even if it starts out like that, they will always get greedy and start making overpowered weapons. You can't stop that, it happens in pretty much all games with microtransactions.

 

[cgentero]

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.

A few things, lets compare your example here to mine, in mine each machine gun had one upside and one downside even the new one i.e. faster reload and less damage, in yours the three initial machine guns are inferior compared to the one bought. Another thing I mentioned there should be ways to attain this new machine gun other than buying with real money e.g. rewards points or random drops, here you assume the noob who didn't buy will never receive the new machine gun which would be false, and like I said a machine gun with a faster reload has a pseudo-advantage only in that initially people aren't use to it but it goes away. Let me make this point more clear, what is the difference between a player who unlocked the new machine gun and played against someone without compared to someone who bought the new machine gun and played against someone without it?

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.

You must not play TF2 right? because people pay for new weapons all the time that aren't overpowered just unique, an example the spy initially has a watch that cloaks but you can buy a watch that instead fakes his death instead and has a higher restore rate but also an equal faster drain rate, again you could get these things through random drops, BTW maybe Call of Duty is just bad example because from the sound of it weapons aren't terribly balanced to begin with in Black Ops.

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.

Here you aren't paying for convenience you're supposed to get what you pay for immediately, keep in mind its going to be balanced.

 

[Windcaler]

It is absolutely a bad idea! When it comes to DLC you do not sell power with it. Especially in multiplayer formats because those without the disposable income to affoard said DLC will fall behind the paying players. Seperating paying players to non-paying players is just a bad business model. We've seen it time and time again.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The problem is here that if you don't make them more powerful than what exists already people won't buy them. If you do make them more powerful then you are just giving the advantage to more wealthy players and unbalancing your game.

I think in that case they should just leave it alone unless its just a cosmetic change.

 

[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.

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.

The Firepower Pack just has extra unique weapons. The Phalanx heavy pistol is more powerful and has laser sighting, the the Mattock AR is semiautomatic and packs one hell of a punch compared to the other fully automatic rifles and the Geth plasma shotgun is the most powerful shotty I've ever used in the game and can be charged up to fire a burst of pellets that turns everything in front of you to mincemeat. So they're not just more powerful but also function quite differently than any of the other default weapons.

Plus Mass Effect 2 has five difficulty levels.

 

[The Heik]

EDIT: Oh, in the Call of Duty example, you'd still have to level up to unlock the gun. It wouldn't automatically go into your inventory so you've got it level 1 every prestige.

This right here is an idea I do not like. The point of weapon unlocks is to encourage you to branch out in your method of killings by giving you new options to try as you progress, and occasionally gives the player a goal to surge towards.

Games like Black Ops butt-rape this idea by making you have to pay in order to actually use that unlocked weapon. Not only does this render the leveling function effectively useless by adding a second level of criteria to unlock, but it also causes people to hoard that currency, creating early game stagnation as the majority spend all their dough on the exact weapons they want (but might not actually be good at, thereby wasting all that hard earned "cash") rather than trying out a new set of weapons for free, then using the ones they like from there on in, always having the option to use any other ones they've unlocked whenever they feel like it.

In regards to the weapon microtransactions, making what should be a core part of the game require physical payment (in addition to already buying the game) is an automatic unbalancer. This is the worst possible thing you could do for any competitive multiplayer situation. Those who buy are by default put at an advantage because they have more options in a versus situation, and those who don't, feel disadvantaged and more damningly, forced to spend more in order to play on an even field. That is just wrong.

The only time I've ever seen weapon microtransactions work is for co-op. My best example for this is Dawn of War 2's Last Stand. In LS, you are supposed to lose out against the enemy (the only victory situation being INCREDIBLY hard to achieve), so any advantage you can create via your build choice is wholeheartedly embraced by all involved players.

 

[F4LL3N]

I re-watched the EC episode on microtransactions. I agree with most of it except the 'don't sell power' part. There's a BIG market in it, and it can be done right. 22% said it's not a bad idea, and that's a fair bit when you consider the influence Extra Credits has on a lot of us.

I think it can be done without the shitstorm, and it's already been said in this thread and in the EC episode. Make it so you can buy it, find it in rare drops, trade it, craft it, and as EC said, earn real life currency in-game to essentially buy it for free.

Then using your credit card really is only for convience. No body is missing out or getting ripped in anyway. This model has already been proven to work, and could easily work on non f2p games too.

It essentially eliminates all but 1 problem. Balance! Because even if the developer does remove it to later sell, you can still get it for free. This model could even open up more options for us, the players.

For example, tournaments, with the prize being rarer items. Which would still be a convience thing, because you can still find it naturally or trade/craft it.

Honestly, what's the downfall?

 

[enriel]

Personally, I hate the idea of having things in a game that I can never have, unless I want to spend real money on them. The old adage goes, "Time is money", so why can't I simply unlock that nice $5 weapon when I have spent enough time doing so?
Have the base weapons, then the unlockable weapons, but also put the unlockable weapons up for sale. Then you get to choose between spending the real world money for immediate digital gains, OR spend the real world TIME to earn those same rewards.

 

[mjc0961]

No, weapons should never be sold that way. You say that they're only a little better. Well, guess what. That's still better. The paying players still get an advantage, even if it is small. Maybe the paid gun's magazine can hold 40 bullets while the free gun only holds 35. Not a huge advantage, right? But it's still enough that if they both start firing at the same time and the free guy runs out before the kill and has to reload while the paying guy gets to finish off the free guy with extra five bullets, you have given the payer an unfair advantage and ruined the balance of the game.

It doesn't matter if the buy-only weapons are "Balanced" or not. Simply put, having more choice gives you an advantage. I can't believe people constantly bring up, "But if you're skilled, you can beat the people who buy all of the weapons!". Have they ever considered if the player who buys all the weapons is skilled as well?

Also, this. It's not like all the free players have all the skill and the only people who buy weapons are n00bs who don't know where the crouch button is. Skilled player with free gun VS skilled player with slightly better premium gun means the second guy is likely going to win most of the time.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Only so long as buying it is not the only method of getting it, otherwise it is a hostile-sounding remark to those who do not get the DLC.
I actually like TF2's model a lot. You can either buy the weapons, or earn them, or craft them. I like it.

 

[F4LL3N]

The reason TF2's model works so well is because you get rewarded for actually investing time into the game. Which is a great reward.

 

[Canid117]

Would be too hard to balance, items you can buy should be purely for show and nothing else.

Skins for weapons, or at least colors for them...

I'm okay with that.

That would be alright, as long as its not an entirely new weapon or gives a new feature to the gun.

Yeah Charging five bucks for five new guns that have the same stats as guns that are already in game but have new models, sounds and textures would sell fairly well and probably wouldn't get bitched about nearly as much as $15 map packs.

 

[Eggsnham]

A lot of people seem to hate the idea of weapons/non-aesthetic items sold through microtransactions. But I see big benefits doings so, so long as:

1. They're not overpowered. They could be slightly better, but not superweapons. You shouldn't NEED them. A standard weapon vs a DLC weapon should still be determined by skill.
2. The developer doesn't remove standard weapons to later sell as DLC.

The benefits?

1. Developers make extra cash.
2. Players get more content.

I'll use Black Ops for example, and let's say the MP5k wasn't actually in the game but you could buy it for a few bucks. It's no better than any other gun, it's mainly just preference. What's bad about that?

Although my actual idea would be $5 for a weapon pack(x3), e.g. SMG weapon pack, AR weapon pack, etc.

EDIT: Oh, in the Call of Duty example, you'd still have to level up to unlock the gun. It wouldn't automatically go into your inventory so you've got it level 1 every prestige.

I say no. Typically DLC weapons and gadgets tend to be more potent and look about eighty times cooler than the vanilla stuff.

Add that to the fact that Activision would probably charge $15 for such a pack, and you've got a problem. Why? Because the people who dedicate their lives to CoD, Battlefield, etc. will buy these guns, while the people who like to play a variety of games will be left with the blunt end of the deal and a multi-billion dollar company who now thinks that it's alright to do this sort of thing.

I hated it when Bad Company 2 did it, the stuff always look better and I think the MG3 got a damage buff when you bought the special kit.

I'm done rambling now.