Why are microtransactions considered okay if they are just cosmetic?

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Okay so I was thinking about this the other day. All the gamers seem to think that microtransactions are okay because they don't effect gameplay and are just cosmetic. I'm sure I'll get the answer "Because it doesn't effect gameplay and let somebody kill you easily in a multiplayer game." Which I understand, but why is it all about gameplay? Games aren't just about gameplay, theres other things to appreciate like graphics, sound, artistic style and story.

Did we just turn on the gamers out there who really enjoy things like creating cool looking characters and throw them to the wolves of microtransactions to save those of us who enjoy gameplay more?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The issue is that there were some games that were actually pay to win where you couldn't compete without spending money due to mechanical imbalance, so to point out they're just cosmetic is less saying that they're ok and more that they don't ruin the game, which can be a very real worry. The concern of whether it's ok or not to have them in the game at all is secondary.


Personally, my view is that "anyone dumb enough to spend money on these things deserves to be ripped off, and if their idiocy can help fund a sequel for a loved series of mine, I'm all for it".

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

It's not just "Microtransactions are OK if they are just cosmetic", it really is "microtransactions are NOT alright when they create a pay-to-win system in the game".

For a lot of gamers, if someone likes to buy cosmetics, then more power to them. However, given the geneal trends we have seen in the gaming industry of the last few years, many of us have turned against microtransactions as a whole because it is just another means by which the gaming companies can nickel-and-dime their customer base to death, maximize short-term profits, and generally put effort and resources into figuring out how to siphon money off of us rather than produce quality games.

There was a period of time when I thought if someone wanted to buy cosmetics, then go right ahead. I thought it was dumb to spend real money on virtual items that really didn't matter (to me, at least), but it was their money, let them spend it as they will. However, I have come around to the point of view that the companies have moved waaaaaay too far along a very bad path and that microtransactions now need to die in a fire (preferably along with the business philosophy that nothing matters except the immediate short-term profits, not even your customers).

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

The issue is that there were some games that were actually pay to win where you couldn't compete without spending money due to mechanical imbalance, so to point out they're just cosmetic is less saying that they're ok and more that they don't ruin the game, which can be a very real worry. The concern of whether it's ok or not to have them in the game at all is secondary..

But some people love making their characters look cool and if thats what they are playing for why doesn't the microtransactions ruin the game for them too?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Because most gamers, just like most people in the world are imbeciles with no impulse control. They want the shiny new thing, but they don't want others to think of them as being stupid for paying for those shiny new things, so they developed this justification that certain types of microtransactions are OK. And it always ends the same. Gaming companies keep finding new ways of separating gamers from their hard earned cash, and slowly but surely those new ways become acceptable, and the imbeciles being what they are barely even register what's happening. That's how we got pre-orders, DLC, exclusive pre-order DLC, Day-1 DLC, season pass, season pass that doesn't get you everything in the game, microtransactions and all the other shit.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The issue is that there were some games that were actually pay to win where you couldn't compete without spending money due to mechanical imbalance, so to point out they're just cosmetic is less saying that they're ok and more that they don't ruin the game, which can be a very real worry. The concern of whether it's ok or not to have them in the game at all is secondary..

But some people love making their characters look cool and if thats what they are playing for why doesn't the microtransactions ruin the game for them too?

It ruins it in a subjective, opinion based way that's less significant than a mathematical, purposefully designed unfairness, put in the game with the expert purpose to make you more likely to spend money so you can keep up with the rest of the community, while pushing everyone else who hasn't spent money yet to do so, in an endless spiral of corporate greed.

It's less about merely making the experience less fun by a little bit by not letting you have access to every single outfit and more about making the entire game completely unplayable mechanically because if you don't spend money you can't beat this next boss and will die there infinitely while everyone else leaves you behind.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

The issue is that there were some games that were actually pay to win where you couldn't compete without spending money due to mechanical imbalance, so to point out they're just cosmetic is less saying that they're ok and more that they don't ruin the game, which can be a very real worry. The concern of whether it's ok or not to have them in the game at all is secondary..

But some people love making their characters look cool and if thats what they are playing for why doesn't the microtransactions ruin the game for them too?

It ruins it in a subjective, opinion based way that's less significant than a mathematical, purposefully designed unfairness, put in the game with the expert purpose to make you more likely to spend money so you can keep up with the rest of the community, while pushing everyone else who hasn't spent money yet to do so, in an endless spiral of corporate greed.

It's less about merely making the experience less fun by a little bit by not letting you have access to every single outfit and more about making the entire game completely unplayable mechanically because if you don't spend money you can't beat this next boss and will die there infinitely while everyone else leaves you behind.

Well, if its all about hard maths why even have any graphics or story at all? Just make it all textureless blobs where its the green blobs vs the red blobs.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The issue is that there were some games that were actually pay to win where you couldn't compete without spending money due to mechanical imbalance, so to point out they're just cosmetic is less saying that they're ok and more that they don't ruin the game, which can be a very real worry. The concern of whether it's ok or not to have them in the game at all is secondary..

But some people love making their characters look cool and if thats what they are playing for why doesn't the microtransactions ruin the game for them too?

It ruins it in a subjective, opinion based way that's less significant than a mathematical, purposefully designed unfairness, put in the game with the expert purpose to make you more likely to spend money so you can keep up with the rest of the community, while pushing everyone else who hasn't spent money yet to do so, in an endless spiral of corporate greed.

It's less about merely making the experience less fun by a little bit by not letting you have access to every single outfit and more about making the entire game completely unplayable mechanically because if you don't spend money you can't beat this next boss and will die there infinitely while everyone else leaves you behind.

Well, if its all about hard maths why even have any graphics or story at all? Just make it all textureless blobs where its the green blobs vs the red blobs.

Microtransactions came to be when profits started to decline. The gaming market had pretty much stopped expanding and was losing investors so they then expanded it to reach athletes (Remember wii fit, NFL xbox ect) and when they reached the end of that market they started trying to break into the "women's market" with gaming ads and articles in women's magazines such as vogue and trying to make gaming more " inclusive" which also received much backlash, but we already know better than to go into that here.

When they first tried to introduce micro transactions, even cosmetic items received backlash (aka Oblivion horse armor), but then most of the gaming community rioted over the pay to win plague, they then figured they could milk the cosmetics as a "compromise" after people became more accepting of that as an "either/ or" solution. When they expanded into the female market, they also found that women were willing to spend more $ on cosmetic items, thus giving them a cash injection when they needed it.

Females spend $111 vs $74 for males in MMOs, and they spend $86 vs $77 for men for casual games. In casual games, women spend $51, or 40 percent more than men ($36) from first-party publishers and $62 vs $28 for men from third-party publishers. About 37 percent of women are likely to buy a virtual item to decorate a page, persona or avatar. Only 19 percent of men spend money on those things.

https://venturebeat.com/2011/08/03/more-gamers-are-spending-real-money-on-virtual-goods-and-women-are-spending-more-than-men/

It is not surprising to me however, that women spend more $ on cosmetic items as women do so in the real world as well, and yea it is smart for developers to tap into that considering the real life cosmetic industry dwarfs gaming. The global cosmetic market is expected to be over $800 billion by 2024, while gaming is only expected to be $179 billion by 2024.

https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=30351

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-video-game-market-expected-073045481.html

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The issue is that there were some games that were actually pay to win where you couldn't compete without spending money due to mechanical imbalance, so to point out they're just cosmetic is less saying that they're ok and more that they don't ruin the game, which can be a very real worry. The concern of whether it's ok or not to have them in the game at all is secondary..

But some people love making their characters look cool and if thats what they are playing for why doesn't the microtransactions ruin the game for them too?

It ruins it in a subjective, opinion based way that's less significant than a mathematical, purposefully designed unfairness, put in the game with the expert purpose to make you more likely to spend money so you can keep up with the rest of the community, while pushing everyone else who hasn't spent money yet to do so, in an endless spiral of corporate greed.

It's less about merely making the experience less fun by a little bit by not letting you have access to every single outfit and more about making the entire game completely unplayable mechanically because if you don't spend money you can't beat this next boss and will die there infinitely while everyone else leaves you behind.

Well, if its all about hard maths why even have any graphics or story at all? Just make it all textureless blobs where its the green blobs vs the red blobs.

Most games are about the intersection of hard maths and visual flair, you need both components to be there unless you're playing a visual novel or something. Especially when you have competitive games or games like MMOs where it's less like experiencing a piece of art and more like partaking in a sport, messing with the numbers is REALLY significant. As in, making a jab one sixtieth of a second faster can make a character unbalanced enough to be top tier in a lot of fighting games. And most things microtransactions affect in the really bad examples are a lot larger than just a jab having a frame less startup.

 

[Agema]

Okay so I was thinking about this the other day. All the gamers seem to think that microtransactions are okay because they don't effect gameplay and are just cosmetic. I'm sure I'll get the answer "Because it doesn't effect gameplay and let somebody kill you easily in a multiplayer game." Which I understand, but why is it all about gameplay? Games aren't just about gameplay, theres other things to appreciate like graphics, sound, artistic style and story.

Did we just turn on the gamers out there who really enjoy things like creating cool looking characters and throw them to the wolves of microtransactions to save those of us who enjoy gameplay more?

What I'd kind of say is that if it works, let's not complain, because if it's keeping the games we play going there's no problem. Certainly, "pay to win" is a massive issue for many games, because lots of players hate it. For example

Spoiler

I remember some small scale online game I played once, you had to build up some space empire by attacking other players, and it involved a lot of, hmm, "growing pains". Eventually, however, some guy smashed my fleet and set me back a long way, and well, fair enough. But there was a thread in the forum where people could boast about their battles. And the guy who trashed me went in and boasted about it... with a large peramble saying he'd bought his advanced account from another player (permitted in this game) for about $200, and a mate of his had worked out the whole thing for him as a new player, so here he was. What a hero! And I promptly quit playing, because what's the point learning and doing things the hard way when stupid noobs with money to waste just buy themselves better.

I have bough cosmetic things that I don't really care about for a few games. I've done it purely to shunt money into the pockets of the devs to encourage them to keep the game running (or make a new one, whatever). Normally, I might send them the equivalent of a DLC (~UKP20) every year.

 

[Kyrian007]

Cosmetic microtransactions are a great indicator of maturity in multiplayer. A screechy, compensating with overused profanity, high pitched squeak is a great indicator of immaturity. But being called a "default" by some player in golden horse armor is a dead giveaway that you are dealing with someone on that same prepubescent maturity level and is gaming with mommy and daddy's credit card rather than with any money they've earned for themselves. Basically, cosmetic microtransactions provide an indicator that a player isn't worth interacting with.

 

[TopazFusion]

It's funny when you think about it. Going back a few years, Bethesda was roasted alive when they tried adding 'Horse Armor' to Oblivion. Back then, gamers considered that type of thing to be unacceptable, and even turned it into a meme.

Nowadays, something like that being added into a $60 AAA game is considered banal, pedestrian, even normal. How times have changed.

There's a really good recent FudgeMuppet video about cosmetic microtransactions which I will link here, which I agree with wholeheartedly.


They're talking about RPGs specifically, but a lot of it is applicable to other games as well.

As for me, cosmetics are a huge part of any game for me. Call me shallow, but I will often equip items and gear that I feel looks cool, rather than trying to min-max and/or equip items with the best stats.

When a cool looking cosmetic item is locked behind a lengthy dungeon or a tricky quest, wearing the item and showing it off is a good way of showcasing that achievement. But bought items are significantly less impressive.

Devs and publishers can hide behind the "pLaYeR cHoIcE" excuse all they like, but in the end you're losing cosmetic items (which would normally be part of the base game) to some stupid in-game store. And if the items are earnable in-game, then the game has been made deliberately grindy to make the microtransactions more appealing. The entire game is worse off for it.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Because it's window dressing, like paying for extra whipped cream on a sundae.

Certainly, I'd always prefer it if all microtransactions were abolished, but to convince most developers to do that and discard potential revenue would require a concentrated, united 'vote with your wallet' style effort and deprive us of a large number of great games that are perfectly enjoyable if you just ignore the cosmetics. Even then it might not work, since new cosmetics are so easy to create and many games still offer the alternative of merely playing a lot to unlock the costumes. That was actually their original incentive, such as in the N64 Spider-Man game.

The never-ending war against 'pay to win' is difficult enough. Optional cosmetics are a minor issue by comparison.

 

[Erttheking]

If it?s a sixty dollar game? It ain?t.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Cosmetic microtransactions are a great indicator of maturity in multiplayer. A screechy, compensating with overused profanity, high pitched squeak is a great indicator of immaturity. But being called a "default" by some player in golden horse armor is a dead giveaway that you are dealing with someone on that same prepubescent maturity level and is gaming with mommy and daddy's credit card rather than with any money they've earned for themselves. Basically, cosmetic microtransactions provide an indicator that a player isn't worth interacting with.

According to the data that would mean you think women are not with interacting with since women outspend everyone else on virtual cosmetic items rather than "kids with their parents credit card". From my personal interactions with my all female guilds, I can tell you women do spend a great deal on microtransactions for cosmetics, not just teens.


Women having a higher pitched voices and spending more on cosmetic items does not mean they are less mature than anyone else, it is just we have different preferences. Forcing women to have to pay extra for cosmetic preferences may actually be considered just another "pink tax" to have access to female centric content, but considering women have to pay more for female items in all aspects of our lives this really isn't any different.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If it?s a sixty dollar game? It ain?t.

With MMO's like WoW, they make you buy the game, pay a subscription AND have microtransactions basically charging for anything and everything they can. That was actually the reason Anet originally formed as they walked out of Blizzard in protest over that payment model, but it didn't take long for Anet to also start charging microtransactions as well.

I think much of the issue is being able to find a balance to help pay for them to update and create new content for a game. Often long term games start losing money to maintain it and will be forced to make a decision to either stop paying employees to update a game or shut it down and cut off support. Once a game loses support, it gets cracked and could become a security risk to play, which then in turn could hurt the developer's reputation and make it a liability.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm honestly okay with cosmetic microtransactions, so long as it's made clear what item you're buying. I mean, I bought the 'coat of arms' thingamajig for A Plague Tale eventhough I'll probably never use it. I don't really see this system as any different from buying physical merchandice.

When they turn that system into gambling though, like lootboxes do, then it's not.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The simple reason is conditioning.

There are a few factors to consider. For one, We have the constant reminder from the Game industry that games are getting more expensive to make and must be more profitable to continue in these endeavors. This, tied with our favorite video game ips shelved for 'not reaching expectations' creates a fear that you might not get another experience like this if we don't show that these endeavors bring profit.

Number two is the overshoot. The gaming industry pushed really, really hard with what they wanted to piece-meal us. Some games had to be offered up for a Sacrifice. eVolve had to present a grossly bloated system that showed you for your 60 dollars, you were getting the bare minimum. Deus Ex Mankind Divided had to have 5 different types of tiers that actually grew in level with how many people actually pre-ordered the game. Mass Effect 3 and all the On-Disc DLC issues. It got so heinous that when the microtransactions we were presented with were only cosmetic, we thought "Thank God, At least I get my entire game".

The third issue is just plain nostalgia conditioning. If you're as old of a gamer as I, you will remember that all of this used to be on the cartridge. Legend of Zelda's second world, all Claire and Leon's costumes on the original RE 2 disc... a lot of us are used to having all these things in the package we bought. Some people got used to having it all.

Fourth is the really insidious. And it's contradicting the last issue. There's a whole generation coming up who doesn't know any better. I never played an actual second of Fortnite, but I can tell you a dance from it when I see it. And why do I see it? Because every kid in the world thinks it's the only way to express how cool they are. That backpack thing and the L dance (whatever it's called). There are literally millions of kids who think there's nothing wrong with 5 dollars for a skin... and frankly, it might be Billions soon.

Truly, Epic is becoming the boogeymen we all were afraid of when the industry turned down the DLC path.

 

[CaitSeith]

Why are microtransactions considered okay if they are just cosmetic?

Because people are stupid (and Overwatch popularized cosmetic lootboxes).

 

[Xprimentyl]

The last new game I bought for myself was INSIDE almost three years ago; I thought the game was absolutely brilliant. When those credits rolled, I sat back not only in awe of the experience I?d just had, but in awe that such an absolute and instantly classic game could come out so modestly in the rising tide of greed and cynicism taking over the games development industry. Playdead loves what they do; they respect their audience and those things showed in the unique and masterfully crafted experience they shared with us. I then looked at the rest of my [then] more recent games and couldn?t help but feel? disappointed (at best,) rooked (most certainly) and, surprisingly, a little angry. What had I been willingly wasting my money on for so long? One ?decent,? ?forgettable? experience after another that were each ?pretty good? or ?pretty much what I expected? because they were carbon copies of something I?d played before and most riddled with hollow promises of additional content (read: ?the rest of the game?) at additional cost; labors of avarice produced in sweat factories by people forced to churn out the bare minimum to meet indifferent investors? financial expectations before even considering the paying customers that make the former even possible. Ugh?

I thought it?d be a phase as I?ve been gaming for over 30 years and am no stranger to gamer?s self-righteous indignation; I?ve slumped a couple of times and always come back, but three years later and essentially spectating this ever unfolding fiasco, I can?t help but feel like a recovering addict driving by his old haunts and witnessing the sad behaviors and habits of those still caught up in that old life. I don?t think I?m better than anyone, but I do feel better about myself. I?m certain I?ve missed some good games; I?m not saying they?re ALL bad, but I also remember that the ?highs? are far outweighed by the ?lows,? and chasing that dragon just isn?t worth it to me, i.e.: for every Witcher 3, there?s a dozen Anthems, and I?ve got a lot of other things I?d rather do with my hundreds of dollars.

Took the long road to get on topic, but here it is: ANY microtransactions are bad in a climate where publishers and developers are

conditioning

gamers to accept their new normal. Conditioning players to accept that their $60 now is just a ?first taste,? a glimpse at things to come later? for an additional $40, $60, $100. Conditioning gamers to accept that $60 is a fair price for what equates to a beta and that of course your new, ?finished? game is going to be mediocre, buggy and require multiple patches, often on day one. Conditioning gamers to accept that ?the rest? is actually ?more,? and aren?t we generous?? Conditioning gamers that they?re no longer ?games,? they?re ?services,? y?know, like your internet or cell phone? You make recurring payments for those services; why not for these?

I was Halo?s biggest fan since 2004, literally throwing day one money at any Halo title. Then Halo 5 happened, and I watched as a titan of the industry, a console figurehead, a name that would sell games to the tune of multiple $MILLIONS$ on name alone, product unseen, turned that wholly unnecessary corner into samey-ness, pettiness and greed (along with taking liberties with an iconic character, but I?ve bitched about that before, so won?t now; Hawki, if you?re reading this, save it, lol,) and I came to the realization that things had certainly changed for the worse and perhaps permanently. When I could no longer earn my favorite armors through my actions playing the game, but instead had the ?option? to pay real money for fake in-game currencies to spend on the random chance to get pieces of it, I was crushed; it was the 15-year reunion, and the then prom queen was now turning tricks to support her meth habit, and why? Because the once beautiful and thriving community I loved is now the ?bad part of town,? and if you hang around, well, that?s just the way things are done now?

Accepting even cosmetic-only microtransOPTIONS, is accepting that greed is ok. It?s accepting that pubs/devs have paved the once quaint footpath into your wallet/purse. It?s accepting that you?re not the customer so much as you are the weathered strap on the feedbags strung round the thick, sweaty necks of morbidly obese, corporate fats cats who don?t even care to see what they?re eating so long as the bag stays full.

End rant; I?m going back to 2008 now.