Micro-transactions - The Discussion

[Shakermaker]

Lets pick up where we left in the recent gaming purchases thread:

You guys are terrible for supporting microtransactions! Even if it is a decent company that you are supporting by doing so!

Why?

Because you're progressing a trend that offers terrible value, and giving precedence for product with even worse value. These companies are probing you guys to see just how little substance they can sell you for a premium price, and you're giving them tons of leeway.

You are assuming I would do this with any game.

I have played Team Fortress 2 for over 600 hours now. I bought it back in 2007 as part of the Orange Box so lets say I paid 18 euro for it. That means the game has cost me 3 cents per hour and that number is dropping every time I play. Now Valve offers me the possibility to buy items that -on the most part- are purely cosmetic and that can also be acquired by simply playing the game. If I just had a fleeting interest in TF2 I wouldn't have bought any hats and have given my crates away. But because I still really enjoy playing the game, I show my appreciation for Valve in a financial way.

My point is: I don't mind micro-transactions if they are implemented in such a way that they don't interfere with the core game. Especially online there should be a level playing field where only the effort and skills of the gamer can make a difference. Money should be kept out of that equation. And when it isn't I probably won't play the game.

 

[Dinnesch]

The TF2 microtransactions DO make a difference in gameplay, because the item-sets give you an advantage over other players. Specific hats can take quite a lot of time to get, if you're unlucky.

(offtopic)
Well - I think I'm gonna give up on hats anyway, like destroy them all. When Valve introduced them I felt really special when I got my first hat, and just kept hoping to find more hats. Which used to occur like every 100-200 hours of play, but you could never know which made it so exciting to find one.

Now they increased the drop rates, introduced crafting, mann-conomy, trading, giving free hats with other games, everyone can easily get their hands on a dozen of hats.
What used to be a very subtle yet awesome addition to TF2 is just an overused, uninteresting feature these days. imo

My cent/hour ratio on TF2 is even lower than yours Shaker(over 1050 hours), but I'm definitely not spending any money on shitty items. I buy a lot of my games on Steam, plan on purchasing Portal 2, so no reason to feel guilty against Valve.

 

[ríomhaire]

I have no problems with micro-transactions as long is it's not a "pay-to-win" situation. In TF2 with achievements, drops, crafting and now trading it doesn't take that long to get any weapons you like if you try. I have already bought two keys and I might buy more in the future (too broke right now though ). I know it's a gamble but I was happy to do it considering the value for money TF2 has given me.

As for the hats issue. They're a fun little cosmetic item. I've now got my two favourite hats for my two favourite classes (Soldier's Stash and Tyrannis) and I think if hats annoy you you really need more important in your life to worry about. Seriously Dinnesch, destroy all hats because my hats aren't special anymore? Get over yourself. They're just virtual accessories. Who gives a shit?

 

[Dinnesch]

Seriously Dinnesch, destroy all hats because my hats aren't special anymore? Get over yourself. They're just virtual accessories. Who gives a shit?

Me not giving a shit is exactly the reason why I'm gonna destroy them.

 

[Shakermaker]

Lets forget about hats for a while though. I do think Krynn made a valid point. The people at Valve are our benevolent overlords but there are other companies out there that aren't so friendly. Will they get away with stuff that goes a lot further than what is happening now in TF2?

 

[kineaesth]

Me not giving a shit is exactly the reason why I'm gonna destroy them.

What a grand and noble gesture that would be! Give them to riomhaire. Or to me.

In response to Shaker - perhaps for you it's less of a case of "selling out" to "the man" and more just giving a bit of money to Valve for a small change in the game you enjoy, but I'm sure that the detractors of micro-transactions have a problem with them in a more general sense, that they seem to undermine what games used to be (not should be, mind). In much the same way that people have a problem with DLC packs (the small ones that add a vehicle or a weapon and cost 10 dollars, not the larger ones that are more like expansion packs), microtransactions transmute the concept of games as a one-time purchase with continual developer support into a dynamic revenue stream for the developers.

People hate change! They also don't like spending money. Fair enough, I say.

 

[bam23]

Microtransactions are dumb when they give you a gutted version of the game and make you to pay to complete the experience.

Btw. Item sets in TF2 are completely overrated. Scout set gives you +25 hp at the cost of less killing power, Pyro set makes you move faster at the cost of a shitty loadout and 10% more vulnerability to bullet damage (LOL), Sniper set just SUCKS period, Spy set is completely situational and nothing to whine about, and Soldier set leaves you with 3 rockets and no shotgun. Really, they SUCK. I'm tired of hearing about how OVERPOWERED THEY ARE CAUSE THEY GIVE YOU SOMETHING OGMOGMOGMOGMOMG. Stop thinking about the set bonus as just a bonus, and think about what you're giving up.

 

[ríomhaire]

Me not giving a shit is exactly the reason why I'm gonna destroy them.

Send them over to me if you like

Edit: Doesn't seem like a reaction of someone who doesn't give a shit. Sounds like the reaction of someone throwing a hissy-fit.

 

[Dinnesch]

Lets forget about hats for a while though. I do think Krynn made a valid point. The people at Valve are our benevolent overlords but there are other companies out there that aren't so friendly. Will they get away with stuff that goes a lot further than what is happening now in TF2?

People won't be interested, so no. BF Heroes lost a lot of their playerbase when they made buying pernament weapons 'more attractive'

You said you were fine with cosmetic stuff like hats, and I explained why I thought Valve's overusage of that idea actually ruined the whole concept. (and like said before the item-kits do give people a gameplay advantage, and they rely on hats)
No, I won't spend any money on items in any MP game. by that I don't mean full expansions.

EDIT: Hats are gone already

 

[Krynn72]

The ONLY beef I have with micro-transactions is their incredibly bad "value per dollar" ratio. I'm not up to date with the micro-transactions in TF2 so I can't really address that situation specifically, but when I see map packs for COD with 4 maps for 15 bucks, I get enraged to see people paying for that kind of shit. With the full game you get so, SO much more for your money, then they charge you 25% more money for not even close to 25% more game. Four COD maps probably take the developer like two or three weeks to make. If a full game takes two years to make, 15 dollars would equate to ~ 6 months worth of work. When people buy this stupid shit, it promotes this "lazyness" in the developer where they can sit back doing hardly anything and make four times the money than they were making when they developing an actual game. And this perpetuates far further than just the one company. Other companies see COD making this ridiculous amount of cash for such little work, and they'll jump on the bandwagon too. More lazy developers, making shit loads of money, draining their customer's wallets and giving little substance in return. Thats my problem with it. Its a brilliant scheme for businesses, and I can't blame them for instituting it honestly. Its the same thing as when I go to some outdoor event and see people paying four dollars for a bottle of water, when you're allowed to bring your own water bottle and they have fountains available. I can't blame the businesses selling the stuff that idiots buy. I can, however, blame the idiots. Which I do, at every opportunity.

If Valve actually makes quality content for a reasonable price, then they and their customers are exempt from this situation. If content like this is appropriately priced for the amount of work goes into it, and the value players get out of it, then it wouldn't perpetuate lazyness and poor valued content since other developers would see that they could only charge the same amount of money for the same amount of work as their other games got them. Then the benefit for the company would be faster turn-around time, rather than faster turn-around time AND quadruple the profits. Still a winning situation for businesses, but now its also a winning situation for their customers, unlike the current situation.

 

[Paulaner]

Micro-transactions = cash cow = very bad.

 

[Shakermaker]

Other companies see COD making this ridiculous amount of cash for such little work, and they'll jump on the bandwagon too. More lazy developers, making shit loads of money, draining their customer's wallets and giving little substance in return. Thats my problem with it. Its a brilliant scheme for businesses, and I can't blame them for instituting it honestly. Its the same thing as when I go to some outdoor event and see people paying four dollars for a bottle of water, when you're allowed to bring your own water bottle and they have fountains available. I can't blame the businesses selling the stuff that idiots buy. I can, however, blame the idiots. Which I do, at every opportunity.

The idiots still have to like the game. For DLC to work you need a significant group of people to keep playing your game over time. The only customers you have are the people that already own your game. Take the new Medal of Honor for example. I betcha EA had big plans to put the milk machine on the teats of the customers. It flopped horribly though, so now EA has no market to sell their DLC to. Laziness only works to a certain degree. You still need to captivate the audience with your product to make money from DLC, even if you're CoD.

 

[CyberPitz]

I could care less if companies have a million Micro-Transactions. I don't want em, I don't buy em. I just wish other people would be so inclined to have some self respect also. *In terms of the 15 dollar for the 4 map pack*

 

[VirusType2]

I bought Colin McRae Rally 2005 (predecessor to DiRT), for the Xbox, back in 2005. In the instruction manual there was a pay to access phone number ($2.99 minute perhaps) that gives you cheat codes to unlock the cars.

I'm probably skilled enough to pass for a professional driver, plus I've been playing racing games since the very first one ever made back in the arcades. And yet, to unlock the cars was so challenging, I probably only unlocked one. So, they essentially sell you a game that 99.99% of people playing will never see all of, without paying.

Wow! Selling cheat codes for the game you made. Now I've seen everything. Did I bite? Hell no.

 

[Krynn72]

The idiots still have to like the game. For DLC to work you need a significant group of people to keep playing your game over time. The only customers you have are the people that already own your game. Take the new Medal of Honor for example. I betcha EA had big plans to put the milk machine on the teats of the customers. It flopped horribly though, so now EA has no market to sell their DLC to. Laziness only works to a certain degree. You still need to captivate the audience with your product to make money from DLC, even if you're CoD.

Sure, but none of that really conflicts with my point.

 

[Raziaar]

I despise Micro-Transactions and that's all I care to say about it right now. I don't have enough money to purchase a good post.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I like the good ones but not the bad ones.

You know, just like full price games. Funny how that works.

 

[Qonfused]

I think it leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths because people feel entitled to 100% of a game when they paid for it. If a company sells a game for $X and then says "And you can have this special thing for only $X more!" it kinda sucks. I paid for the game, not some of it. I think TF2 is a different story because this is all coming out years after the release. So I guess I'm against games that are released with this in mind, not games that introduce microtransactions to keep it alive and relevant, which is what I think Valve is doing with TF2.

 

[jimbo118]

I could care less if companies have a million Micro-Transactions. I don't want em, I don't buy em. I just wish other people would be so inclined to have some self respect also. *In terms of the 15 dollar for the 4 map pack*

What if Gran Turismo has DLC for new cars?

Will you resist?

 

[ríomhaire]

I bought Colin McRae Rally 2005 (predecessor to DiRT), for the Xbox, back in 2005. In the instruction manual there was a pay to access phone number ($2.99 minute perhaps) that gives you cheat codes to unlock the cars.

I'm probably skilled enough to pass for a professional driver, plus I've been playing racing games since the very first one ever made back in the arcades. And yet, to unlock the cars was so challenging, I probably only unlocked one. So, they essentially sell you a game that 99.99% of people playing will never see all of, without paying.

Wow! Selling cheat codes for the game you made. Now I've seen everything. Did I bite? Hell no.

Dude, there used to be loads of services like that, run by both games publishers and games magazines. That kind of thing is actually really, really old-fashioned.

I could care less if companies have a million Micro-Transactions. I don't want em, I don't buy em. I just wish other people would be so inclined to have some self respect also. *In terms of the 15 dollar for the 4 map pack*

COULDN'T CARE LESS. Think about what the hell you are saying. If you could care less that means you care an amount because it is possible for you to care less. God Pitzy I expected better from you!

 

[StarBob]

I think micro transactions are fine if applied in the right way. First of all they have to be of a quality that is actually worth their price. I think map packs are not even close to meeting this criterion alone. I feel even worse for the people who made AvP map pcks and sought micro transaction even though no one plays the MP. Still, no matter how popular your game is, it shouldn't got 10-15 USD for a handful of maps that are usually generated from zones already in game. Second, the added content shouldn't try to separate the groups playing. There's nothing more annoying than buying a game only to find that you have to buy some stupid update because EVERYONE is playing that. Third, it shouldn't create a large gap between those that get it and those that don't. This is something that you don't see as often. A lot of companies take this in to consideration, but it still happens out there. The final thing is the actual price. It seems like more and more that micro transactions are less and less micro. The prices associated not only represent a significant percentage of the original game's price, but often do not represent the amount of content you are purchasing. Bioware has is making a habit of doing things like this and I can't say it's very appealing to me.

But really, if a company creates micro transactions that meet some of all of these criteria, then I have no problem with it existing. It drives replayability and can perpetuate a good game/franchise. It also puts a little more money into the developers' pockets and they're the people that often get the smallest piece of the pie.

 

[Gargantou]

Lets forget about hats for a while though. I do think Krynn made a valid point. The people at Valve are our benevolent overlords but there are other companies out there that aren't so friendly. Will they get away with stuff that goes a lot further than what is happening now in TF2?

Benevolent? Oh please, maybe compared to Activision, but Valve in the end is a large-scale video game developer and just like any others, their main priority is naturally profit.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that priority, but it does mean that they will, like most other developers try to probe us to see just how much cash they can squeeze us for, just like Krynn himself indicates.

I don't know if I am in minority of not seeing Valve as some sort of ultra-altruistic developer

Anyway, I am on principle against micro-transactions, especially in multiplayer and in an environment where these micro-transactions lets the person bypass things.

For example, buying items in TF2 with real money let's you bypass the need to play for a long while and collect stuff and craft and shit until you get that item.

For me it's really about the principle, in TF2, a wealthy person can just waltz in and buy every item in the store and have it all unlocked for the first time he ever even plays the game.

Whereas a poor person who maybe has a hard time just affording buying one/two new games a month would most likely have to spend what, over a year in order to get all the items?

I just think it feels a bit sad when people's IRL income level let's them procure advantages in a multiplayer game.

And yes, having to bypass the whole waiting to get that item I really want, IS an advantage.

Maybe it doesn't have huge effect on gameplay, but it's still an advantage.

Honestly, we might as well make an MMO where a player can pay X amounts of money to start at a certain level.

 

[Ren.182]

To me, micro-transaction are fine as long as they don't split the player base, give players an advantage, or aren't stupidly over priced items.

As long as the stuff they're saying doesn't do any of the above, then I'm fine with it. It's then down to the player to decide whether they want to buy it or not. Like I've said previously, I don't mind buying stuff from the TF2 store because I've put so many hours into the game, and I still enjoy it today. So I don't mind spending a few extra quid here and there.

I know it's been said that some of the weapon/hat sets give the players some advantages, but they also have disadvantages tied to them. Like the pyro set grants 10% move speed increase, but also 10% bullet damage increase on the wearer. So really it's like choosing a different weapon. (e.g normal flamethrower or back burner?)

I don't like map packs. They split the player base up and really they should have been included in the initial release, or at least for free (which is great, as it doesn't split the player base up). Especially since, given the chance, the community can make as good as or even better maps than the developer, all for free. So stuff like the COD map packs, the mini expansion bought out for BF 2142 etc should be free or included in the initial release.

Also I don't like stuff for single player games, like the weapon/vehicle packs for Just Cause 2. Even if they were only like £1 or whatever, that's too much to pay for a single item.

 

[Eejit]

Benevolent? Oh please, maybe compared to Activision, but Valve in the end is a large-scale video game developer and just like any others

As they're not a publicly traded company they aren't required to seek profit over all else like many other publishers and developers are. If it was their sole priority they would have charged for Alien Swarm for example.

 

[Shakermaker]

Benevolent? Oh please.

The internet should have sarcasm tags .... Valve is a company just like any other, but you'd have to admit that Gaben et all have a way of doing business that is a lot more pleasant than Activision for example.

I just think it feels a bit sad when people's IRL income level let's them procure advantages in a multiplayer game.

Even if those advantages are purely cosmetic? I know you're from the Communist Republic of Sweden (insert sarcasm tags here) but isn't this simply how capitalism works? Rich people can buy more than poor people. That is just the way things are in this brave new world of ours.

Honestly, we might as well make an MMO where a player can pay X amounts of money to start at a certain level.

But that is something different. Like I wrote in my OP I don't appreciate micro-transaction schemes that allow for gameplay advantages.

 

[Chrash]

Those items may be purely cosmetic, but there are people who take their time and work for 'em. It may take some time, but the hat is really cool so they keep at it, and after some time they get it. Now the hat holds some value, its a monument to the work they put in to that game.

And then some guy comes and buys an identical one. The hat is now useless.

Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Eejit]

And then some guy comes and buys an identical one. The hat is now useless.

Way to overly invest in some pixels.

Oh and remember one can get items to complete sets via trading as well as buying or waiting for drops.

 

[VirusType2]

Dude, there used to be loads of services like that, run by both games publishers and games magazines. That kind of thing is actually really, really old-fashioned.

To pay $13 or whatever to be able to access the cars that are in the game, otherwise, you only have a few choices - only 2 cars of which are probably even physically capable of using to win. To me, it's different than anything anyone else has done before.

It's not game hints like we've had for decades. You could get the game hints from a 3rd party: a friend telling you the trick, or a magazine.

They are selling passwords, and they aim to take the 3rd party out of the equation. You can't get the code from a 3rd party because the game discs have different access codes.

They aren't charging you for your burden on a service, they are using this as a revenue stream. Pay extra to access the best parts of the game. Insulting.

Here, I've updated the box graphic:

FIXED

 

[Gargantou]

As they're not a publicly traded company they aren't required to seek profit over all else like many other publishers and developers are. If it was their sole priority they would have charged for Alien Swarm for example.

All fair points.

I just felt benevolent was perhaps the wrong word, and the fact they've decided to go ahead with these microtransactions in my opinion does show quite clearly where their priority lies the closest.

And, releasing Alien Swarm for free might have increased profits for Valve, attracting more gamers to the Steam platform for example.

It's hard to know.