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

[Nieroshai]

If it wasn't a superior or alternate-effect weapon, or in no way different from normal enough to warrant interest, bear with me,
[HEADING=1]WHY WOULD YOU SPEND MONEY ON IT???[/HEADING]

Think about it, why did horse armor in Oblivion get so much flak? Because it was in no way useful. It just made that ONE horse look a LITTLE different and give it a LITTLE more health. Would I spend $1.50 on a gun with a different paint job? Or a slightly different model? No, it'd better be a damn BFG or shrink/freeze ray to warrant me not just skipping out on it for the 100 other guns like it if we go with your COD example. DLC like normal-but-not-included guns should be free. Unique guns or character skins are worth pennies. Expansion backs are what are genuinely worth dollars.

 

[Chibz]

but don't gimme this nickel-and-dime bullshit when DLCs are already dubious as it is.

How are DLC inherently dubious? If used right (to be fair, many companies DON'T use DLC right) it's a way for the company to profit off of sales long after the actual sale, while supporting the game for the consumer.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Hello, I just joined these forums.

I think the serious problem with DLC is not that it can unbalance multiplayer games but, as several people have said, that it's a goddamn ripoff, almost always. Developers are blatantly making entire games and then holding parts of them back to sell as DLC. A downloadable *expansion pack* is fine, if it contains actual new content, missions, areas, maps or whatever, if it's clear that the developers have gone back to the game and made a new, shorter, game. That's what "expansion pack" used to mean, not a couple of new weapons and the option of pink hair.

And while tiny DLC content packs are taking over from expansion packs, what would once have been called expansion packs are now being sold as new games, sequels. Anyone play Half-Life: Opposing Force? That was an expansion pack: a new, smaller game, made with the same software, sold for less than the price of a full game. Now look at Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or the newer one. Once upon a time they would have been considered expansion packs to AC2.

Anyway, didn't intend to enter these forums on such a cynical, negative note, but couldn't help saying my piece.

Hi everybody!

 

[Hides His Eyes]

I have to agree with that Chibz. I hope no one got the impression from my other post that I think DLC is inherently wrong. It's just that, as you say, companies invariably abuse it. Almost all DLC is either blatantly pre-made along with the rest of the game and sold as something extra, or else it's just very, very bad value for money.

 

[FalloutJack]

but don't gimme this nickel-and-dime bullshit when DLCs are already dubious as it is.

How are DLC inherently dubious? If used right (to be fair, many companies DON'T use DLC right) it's a way for the company to profit off of sales long after the actual sale, while supporting the game for the consumer.

The answer comes in the three words 'if used right'. They're not always, they can/have bugged out, and I do hear complaints every now and then. I don't like how DLCs are and there are a number of other people who don't as well. That spells dubious. But yes, if done right, but they aren't always at that.

 

[franconbean]

I've voted no, but it was a snap decision that I'm now rethinking, the business model used in games such as league of legends seems to work, where additional playable characters can be unlocked by either microtransaction or ingame currency. That way the Golden Rule is bent but not broken, as Those willing to shell out get an advantage that is temporary at best.

Also, i would only support it really if the core game was cheap or free. Otherwise, you have already raided my wallet once for this title, mr. McGamecorporation, get back, I say!

 

[jpoon]

I think it's a bad idea, all you are doing is begging corporations to nickel and dime the fuck out of everyone for items that, in theory, should already be included in the game. I say no!

 

[F4LL3N]

I think it's a bad idea, all you are doing is begging corporations to nickel and dime the fuck out of everyone for items that, in theory, should already be included in the game. I say no!

Not necessarily. What if a game is released full of quality content (specifically weapons), but 6 months down the track the devs/community think of a great new item that perhaps wasn't thought of previously.

I think it's already been show that devs have no interest in adding extra content for free, even if that extra content is a great idea that would 'refresh' the game. I've never seen it happen yet, excluding DLC. Something like this would give them a reason to invest a bit of extra time into providing extra content - and in a FPS, weapons are content.

... The Maddock rifle in ME2 and a lot of the other extra weapons were way too badass to be a DLC, should have been put in the actual game.

That's subjective. Just because that's happened before doesn't mean all examples after it will be the same.

 

[Chibz]

The answer comes in the three words 'if used right'. They're not always, they can/have bugged out, and I do hear complaints every now and then. I don't like how DLCs are and there are a number of other people who don't as well. That spells dubious. But yes, if done right, but they aren't always at that.

That's the thing. "if done right" applies to a lot of things. Video games, films, books. However, if you don't believe the thing is quality don't buy it.

 

[Cowabungaa]

This is a bad idea, simply because paid-for DLC is in general a bad idea. I have never bought a single piece of DLC, because I think it's a bad idea to force a customer to pay online for a piece of game software. Having the online path as an option doesn't worry me so much; see the expansion packs of the past. On the other hand, these miniscule bits of game that they're selling for $5 are ludicrously overpriced.

Differs for each game really. I've spend about 11 hours on GTA's The Lost And Damned for example, which is a longer campaign than most full-priced games can claim to have. I've spend even more on The Ballad of Gay Tony, and I haven't even finished it yet, and I barely screw around like most people do in GTA games.

Bad Company 2's Vietnam DLC also offers a different experience from the vanilla game. They really gave that DLC it's own flavour and atmosphere, pretty much like a regular expansion pack.

True, it's easier to screw up DLC as well. I bet you know the examples as well as I do. Weapons definitely shouldn't be a part of it, because they're indeed pretty damn overpriced, especially in multiplayer settings.

The answer comes in the three words 'if used right'. They're not always, they can/have bugged out, and I do hear complaints every now and then. I don't like how DLCs are and there are a number of other people who don't as well. That spells dubious. But yes, if done right, but they aren't always at that.

It's unfair to just avoid DLC because of it. Chibz was right in that 'if done right' count to every single thing ever made. Why not judge them on a case-by-case basis just like you would buy games or go watch a movie?

 

[Tr3mbl3Tr3mbl3]

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.

In lieu of quoting individual portions of the quote as you did, I'm just going to use numbers because I don't have that kind of time.

1. Okay, I don't think you're getting this. Why should I pay money for something that's already in the game I already paid money for? I'm not, and to be clear, nobody else is going to pay money to unlock content that's already available in the game and still retain the balance you're speaking of. It's not going to happen, and again I say it's not going to happen. You can't hand out "unique" or powerful weapons to players who didn't earn them. Buying your way out is in no way fair to other players and completely ruins the spirit of virtually every progression based online multiplayer system available today. Perhaps there might be one day when a new multiplayer system for shooters is implemented, and microtransactions for "unique" weaponry could become a possibility. Right now, it's not going to work, end of story.

2. Just because it worked in Team Fortress 2 it works in every game ever made or going to be made regardless of different circumstances, or at least that's what it sounds like you're trying to say. One adequate example of this working is not enough to convince me or, and based on the other commentators of this post, anyone else that this is a good idea. Team Fortress 2 is not progression based: you don't earn more gear and better weapons based on performance. Yes, you get more things and items, but from my (and I'm willing to admit) brief experience from Team Fortress 2, this system was based more on complete randomness or the trade system than actual skill. In other words, obtaining these items had zero sense of accomplishment and therefore no worth. On the other side of the spectrum, CoD has a leveling system that rewards players with new equipment and weapons because they earned it, not because they found a rotating box levitating about a foot off the ground. Rewarding players who've earned better equipment with better equipment is not unbalanced (although you could argue Black Ops's "CoD Points" system did rock the boat a little bit with the equipment and perks, but that's another post and in my opinion doesn't apply), it simply creates a more rewarding experience. Don't believe me? The two fastest selling video games of all time are Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, clearly they're doing something right.

3. I'm not entirely sure what this third argument is even supposed to mean. I made it clear that purchasing locked items is bad. Although I appreciate you re-iterating the "it could be balanced" argument, that's just more work for me to say "not a chance". Again, nothing worth paying more money for would be balanced in the online multiplayer structure of today. Paying for downloadable weapons in any competitive video game is a bad idea and could ruin DLC and microtransactions even worse than the complete pointlessness of Oblivion's horse armor, the disappointing map packs for Bulletstorm, or the over-priced garbage that ague numerous social and MMO marketplaces.

 

[cgentero]

snip

Firstly, no one is making you pay, I would prefer it available to everyone with patience and early to those who pay, its not exclusive. Secondly, yes it is unbalanced to give players any advantage regardless of how much time they spent playing, hence my dislike of the "pro" version of perks in MW2, COD4 was balanced because(well for the most part) no weapon or perk was inherently better. Lastly, now correct me if I'm wrong but here you sound like you're problem isn't with balance, but that you're just mad that people wouldn't have done the work you did.

EDIT: Now as for why people would spend money on it? Because I want LMG with a faster reload even though it has has less damage output, it is unique, it has a speciality among LMGs, its not overpowered in anyway beyond its novelty, and I don't want to wait to unlock it by leveling.

 

[teebeeohh]

except that it will start with guns with different skins being sold, to guns with slightly better stats, than some asshole in marketing get's his hands on it and everything besides knifes and peashooters has to be bought.
the worst example i have is ME2 where the weapons pack was supposed to add variety to the weapons but contained the best rifle in the game and thus the best all round weapon. nice try but flawed execution.

as part of map packs to spice up the arsenal i am all for it, ideally with some hard but still achievable unlock requirements. or just sell different skins for weapons, i am sure that would sell.

 

[FalloutJack]

The answer comes in the three words 'if used right'. They're not always, they can/have bugged out, and I do hear complaints every now and then. I don't like how DLCs are and there are a number of other people who don't as well. That spells dubious. But yes, if done right, but they aren't always at that.

That's the thing. "if done right" applies to a lot of things. Video games, films, books. However, if you don't believe the thing is quality don't buy it.

And that's exactly what I do, naturally. I make a choice, you make a choice, we all make a choice. But then, what happens when they start to phase out the good options in favor of the shitty ones, the ridiculous ones, the tedious ones, and the troublesome ones all in the name of the almighty buck? My desire for a complete game in package goes bye-bye. Companies aren't about what people think is right or wrong. It's about what they think according to their values which is, bottom line, profit. And while the pursuit of profit is an obvious requirement in business, you can't deny that it steps on the toes of the customer here and there.

-Post DLC-

Hi there. Please refer above for my statement on the matter. I think you'll find that my cause for concern is not unwarranted.

 

[Cowabungaa]

And that's exactly what I do, naturally. I make a choice, you make a choice, we all make a choice. But then, what happens when they start to phase out the good options in favor of the shitty ones, the ridiculous ones, the tedious ones, and the troublesome ones all in the name of the almighty buck? My desire for a complete game in package goes bye-bye. Companies aren't about what people think is right or wrong. It's about what they think according to their values which is, bottom line, profit. And while the pursuit of profit is an obvious requirement in business, you can't deny that it steps on the toes of the customer here and there.

*shrug* Not all DLC is just some extra missions for 10 bucks, or Horse Armor. Those things are easy to spot and avoid anyway. But expansion packs have been around almost since the dawn of gaming, and now they're delivered in digital form. Bad Company 2's Vietnam expansion, Liberty City Stories, that sort of thing. Don't see what's the problem with DLC like that, don't see how they're stepping on consumer's toes. Of course, a couple of overpriced weapons is a whole 'nother story.

 

[FalloutJack]

And that's exactly what I do, naturally. I make a choice, you make a choice, we all make a choice. But then, what happens when they start to phase out the good options in favor of the shitty ones, the ridiculous ones, the tedious ones, and the troublesome ones all in the name of the almighty buck? My desire for a complete game in package goes bye-bye. Companies aren't about what people think is right or wrong. It's about what they think according to their values which is, bottom line, profit. And while the pursuit of profit is an obvious requirement in business, you can't deny that it steps on the toes of the customer here and there.

*shrug* Not all DLC is just some extra missions for 10 bucks, or Horse Armor. Those things are easy to spot and avoid anyway. But expansion packs have been around almost since the dawn of gaming, and now they're delivered in digital form. Bad Company 2's Vietnam expansion, Liberty City Stories, that sort of thing. Don't see what's the problem with DLC like that, don't see how they're stepping on consumer's toes. Of course, a couple of overpriced weapons is a whole 'nother story.

And I thank you for at least agreeing about the weapons point. Now, I don't see expansion packs in quite the same category as DLCs personally. When I think of an expansion pack, I think of Starcraft Brood Wars, say. It's another game or a continuation of a game, and I know many DLCs are at least kind of this, but there's another thing about it. It's there. You have it in front of you in a box. If anything goes wrong, you have the working physical copy to re-install, back up, whatever with it. No need for online support, dealing with companies, etc. It's right there. That's an expansion pack. A DLC is data only, and whatever you do in case of trouble is either basically done the hard way or not at all.

 

[jpoon]

I think it's a bad idea, all you are doing is begging corporations to nickel and dime the fuck out of everyone for items that, in theory, should already be included in the game. I say no!

Not necessarily. What if a game is released full of quality content (specifically weapons), but 6 months down the track the devs/community think of a great new item that perhaps wasn't thought of previously.

I think it's already been show that devs have no interest in adding extra content for free, even if that extra content is a great idea that would 'refresh' the game. I've never seen it happen yet, excluding DLC. Something like this would give them a reason to invest a bit of extra time into providing extra content - and in a FPS, weapons are content.

... The Maddock rifle in ME2 and a lot of the other extra weapons were way too badass to be a DLC, should have been put in the actual game.

That's subjective. Just because that's happened before doesn't mean all examples after it will be the same.

Well if you are fine with being charged for little shit that barely adds anything to the game then that's fine, I just won't pay for it. 95% of the time it's not going to be worth the money and it only reinforces my decision to avoid it, there are many times that I just don't buy a game for this reason. To each his/her own but I won't take part in fueling the devs love of the "nickel and dime" technique.

 

[Tr3mbl3Tr3mbl3]

snip

Firstly, no one is making you pay, I would prefer it available to everyone with patience and early to those who pay, its not exclusive. Secondly, yes it is unbalanced to give players any advantage regardless of how much time they spent playing, hence my dislike of the "pro" version of perks in MW2, COD4 was balanced because(well for the most part) no weapon or perk was inherently better. Lastly, now correct me if I'm wrong but here you sound like you're problem isn't with balance, but that you're just mad that people wouldn't have done the work you did.

EDIT: Now as for why people would spend money on it? Because I want LMG with a faster reload even though it has has less damage output, it is unique, it has a speciality among LMGs, its not overpowered in anyway beyond its novelty, and I don't want to wait to unlock it by leveling.

No sir, my problem is with giving people power they instead did not earn, which is unbalanced. Utilizing a perk and thereby earning a better version of it is a problem with you? And instead you would rather pay additional money to buy a better gun than level up Sleight of Hand to get better reload speeds? Either you're stupid or you don't actually like playing FPSs.

Look, I've made my point, and according to the poll, weapon DLC is a bad idea according to a wide majority of people. Face it: you lost this one.

 

[cgentero]

I fail to see how time spent in game legitimizes being overpowered in competitive multiplayer but whatever.

 

[F4LL3N]

It's wouldn't be about convience for me, personally. In a game like Call of Duty, 90% of the gameplay derives from unlocking new weapons, perks, etc,. then upgrading them.

I'm all for selling weapons, but in the last model I described, I wouldn't actually buy them. I'd earn them, because that's half the fun. Some of you might think this would just be a way for noobs to get weapons easier, with little to no effort. I don't that's necessarily the case.

Again, for any Halo (Reach; although I don't actually own it) fans. Wouldn't it be awesome to have a lightsaber as an option in the game. It could be something like this:

Lightsaber:
Positives - Reflect laser/plasma bullets.
- Instantly removes shield on contact(melee)
Negatives - Requires 2 melee hits to kill (one to remove shield, one to kill)
- Receive x1.3 damage from human weapons while equipped

I'm not saying we'll ever actually see a lightsaber in Halo, it's just an example of something that would be pretty cool to see. Then again, you could rename it poo-jabber and chuck the same effects on it. Either way, we wouldn't see something like that in the vanilla verson of Halo.

If I were a developer, I'd release these kind of things for free just to make my game as bad-ass and as popular as possible.