#1 Edited by Aterons (198 posts) -

I am going to try and keep this short.

Lately, and as of lately I mean in the last 2 or 3 years, there has been a flood of exploitative micro-transactions in many video games. Be it "horse armor" type "dlc", parts of the game that were cut out to be made into DLC ( sometimes essentials, other times non-essentials ) or the thousands of weapons/packs/xp boosts... etc that you can buy to cheat your way in the multi-player.

Despite this I have seen a almost no mention of them in the discussion about the games. For example, Forza which was discussed at length has so many micro-transactions that you can literally spend hundreds of dollars in that game. Same goes with things like BF4 a game that is basically MP only and the MP is based on progression, yet micro-transactions that allow you to basically out right cheat half the MP got only a short mention.

I understand the old: "Don't like it, don't buy it" mentality, but on the same side of the coin people will be tempted to buy games they hear more about, and if the negative aspects are not mentioned you end up with people buying those games and not thinking about the negatives. I understand that micro transactions are not part of gameplay and game-press generally gets some booster packs + most people working for GB have enough money not to really care for a few dozen dollars extra to a game they got for free, but I really think there should be a bit more involvement from the guys in warning people about micro transactions and calling out the games that have them in a very negative light, because a game that sells for 60$ should be judged as a 60$ game and a game that you bought for 60$ and got 100$ worth of stuff in DLC/packs for should be judged as a 160$ game.

Am I talking bullshit ? Or would you like to hear a bit more discussion around the nickel and dimming that goes on in the current games.

#2 Edited by Gonmog (580 posts) -

Sometimes they are worth talking about. But most games the crew plays that have them, they dont matter much.

There is a huge thread about the F5 transactions, not many reviews bring it up one time. Why? Cause it does not effect the core game. The game is still there, with everything being unlockable, with the grinding sure, but racing games tend to have that grind to unlock new cars anyways. And the game is flat out fun. I have not seen any of the BF4 transactions to be honest. But im willing to bet...its not near as bad as "cheating".

How ever with a game like Rome, it is brought up in sidelines, cause it is truly a cash grab. There is no point to it what so ever. You get levels buy killing stuff, you also get skill points by leveling, you have to be a level to use some skills, and by the time you are that level you will have enough skill points to unlock some of it. You buy what the game gives you freely. So it is a grab at the people who dont know better.

Really in the end they are NOT going away. People can say that it is horrible all they want. But in the end, the big game devs need income to make big games that we STILL enjoy even after the indi boom that has happen. And 60 bucks a pop is not going to cut it. (FFS i payed 80-100 games for snes....) It has been 60 bucks for the whole of last gen. I would not have blamed them if they had raised it to 80 for this gen. It can be done tactful.

The game media mostly knows this, so if it is in the back ground not really doing anything, they may not bring it up at all. But the consumers, we, are not happy about it.

But we still buy the massive games that cost a ton of money to make. No matter how much we say we want more indi games. I think the big budget games will always have a place. And if they have a few microtransactions in them...so be it. I'm fine with that.

#3 Posted by TobbRobb (4607 posts) -

Uuuuh. I feel like they talk about microtransactions and the economic sides of games all the time? And even if they don't I kinda don't want more discussion about it than mentioning if it's present or not and how deep it goes. I'll judge the morals on my own thanks.

#4 Edited by Aterons (198 posts) -

@gonmog:

I'm sorry but what you say sounds brain-washing. They need more money ? Really, really ? BF4 needs more money to put out the game it puts out ? I am sorry, but they do not need more money they are making profits and are investing those profits into advertisement.

Many indies work on a budget of a few hundred thousands or a a few millions and they develop great games, and if you will bring up the point that "they aren't as good as BF4" than I will point to you The Witcher 2, made with a budget of 8 million dollars and has the best graphics of 2011 and possibly up to date ( certainly on par with BF4 or Forza ), about 100-140 hours worth of content and quality voice acting/face animation/writing.

Mass effect does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, BF does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, Forza does not need a budget of 100 million dollars... and even if they fucking did you would still be able to sell the 2 million copies required to get 100 million dollars and 20% profit with the micro-transactions, and they sell around 6 to 20 million copies, granted only a few millions are bought a full price but that still gives you a budget of way over 100 millions and profit to the parent company.

Micro transactions are required to buy ads, which in the end are damaging to any talent-driven industry as a whole because you end up buying based on popularity instead of quality.

Racing games and FPSs should not have grinds and if they do have them they should not have a "skip grind" button which you need to pay money in order to press. If you reached the point where you think this kind of shit is "ok" because "the poor devs living in private LA houses" and "the poor share holders with their 2 years old white gold Lamborghinis" need more money than a few hundred millions to develop a game than you are plain out wrong, micro-transactions in non free to play games that sold well enough when they didn't have micro-transaction are bad. If people were to raise prices to 80$ than that would be a fair deal where the actual price of the game is on the box and people who can afford their game to be 60$ should get the credit for being able to have it so.

http://sancarlos.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/jets-fly-formation-over-area-for-ea-promotion

Please tell me again how they 'really need more money to make Battlefield 5'.

#5 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1005 posts) -

It kinda annoys me when pepole say Killer Instinct is bad for having micro-transactions when it only has them if you WANT it to have them.

#6 Edited by HH (609 posts) -

@gonmog said:
Really in the end they are NOT going away.

but stricter regulation is not out of the question and i think likely to happen eventually. all it would take is a flood of sob stories about families who ended up broke cos their kid was left unsupervised.

there are millions of scams out there that work because people don't realize they're being scammed, and the marketing departments of games publishers are very clearly encroaching on that territory with how some of these currencies and pay-walls are presented and placed.

in Dota 2 i can see it being pretty harmless, and I'm sure there are other examples where it's under control, but as far as Microsoft, and now Sony, are concerned i find the whole thing appalling, it even bothers me that bullshit like avatar items are given equal place with legitimate content dlc in their online stores, and i really wish more industry people were calling out for restraint.

#7 Edited by Rafaelfc (1333 posts) -

I'd prefer if they just ignored games with microtransactions in them, as all consumers should.

#8 Posted by Gonmog (580 posts) -

@aterons: % of returns. That's the point. Investeres wants more money. Pure and simple. Sorry you misunderstood that. Indi games are good. No one said they are not. They also make a hell of a lot more based on how much was put in. But we still buy big budget games. So they HAVE to make it worthwhile to the investors that see more returns on little games like Sims online or what ever else is on Facebook.

#9 Edited by Jeust (10559 posts) -

@gonmog said:

@aterons: % of returns. That's the point. Investeres wants more money. Pure and simple. Sorry you misunderstood that. Indi games are good. No one said they are not. They also make a hell of a lot more based on how much was put in. But we still buy big budget games. So they HAVE to make it worthwhile to the investors that see more returns on little games like Sims online or what ever else is on Facebook.

True. Although that's the problem with capitalism, and one of the reasons it will one day fail. The possibility of increasing returns isn't infinite, and as more expensive the gaming market gets, the shorter it will become its audience. There is a point where profit, despite high prices and sophisticated strategies, start dropping.

To me it is ludicrous to spend 50€ on DLC on a game I bought at 60€. Even on sale it is hard for that price to come to down to just 60€. So, although I can see legitimate reason to spend as much, I can't see myself embracing that idea.

I wish the gaming media would talk more about the price of season passes, and dlc overall, because it has become a very complex and expensive business.

#10 Edited by CoinMatze (471 posts) -

@aterons:

  1. Witcher 2 graphics are not on par with BF4 and Forza 5, that is crazy talk. You could argue that it has better art direction but that has nothing to do with the subject. And it's more like 25-50 hours worth of content. Also, CDPR is based in Poland which has a much lower cost of living than the US.
  2. I'm not sure if that graph that's floating around the internet is still correct but a publisher gets less than half of those 60$ a new game sells for. The rest goes to the platform holder, distribution, retailer etc. So your cute little math of 2 million sold that's 120 million bucks is complete garbage.
  3. Whatever profit is made off a game isn't moneys in the bank. That is going to sustain more than hundreds of lives over the next 2-4 years until the next project is done.
  4. And this?
@aterons said:

If you reached the point where you think this kind of shit is "ok" because "the poor devs living in private LA houses"

That is some despicable bullshit right there. Someone working on big budget games should get in here and tell you about the prestigious lives they live.

#11 Posted by hermes (1424 posts) -

@aterons said:

@gonmog:

Mass effect does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, BF does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, Forza does not need a budget of 100 million dollars... and even if they fucking did you would still be able to sell the 2 million copies required to get 100 million dollars and 20% profit with the micro-transactions, and they sell around 6 to 20 million copies, granted only a few millions are bought a full price but that still gives you a budget of way over 100 millions and profit to the parent company.

But they do. Game development costs a lot more than you give it credit to.

For comparison, take Psychonauts (an XBox game that is almost 10 years old and costed about 13 million dollars); MGS4 costed over 60 millions... Now compare it to games like Mass Effect 3 and tell me you can't understand how the budget escalated to over 100 millions.

Also, they need a lot more than 2 million copies to cope with the costs, because publishers and developers receive a percentage of the full price (last time I checked, it was close to 30 % for the publisher and less than 10 % for the developer). Add to that the fact many people don't buy a copy at a retailer price, and that they get no money at all from used games, and the prospect of a source of money that comes directly from the consumers starts looking very appealing.

OT: They have talked about it, on several occasions. While they don't have the highest opinions on stuff like Catwoman's day one story DLC, they are more receptive to concepts like DLC or packs than other people.

#12 Edited by Jeust (10559 posts) -

@hermes said:

@aterons said:

@gonmog:

Mass effect does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, BF does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, Forza does not need a budget of 100 million dollars... and even if they fucking did you would still be able to sell the 2 million copies required to get 100 million dollars and 20% profit with the micro-transactions, and they sell around 6 to 20 million copies, granted only a few millions are bought a full price but that still gives you a budget of way over 100 millions and profit to the parent company.

But they do. Game development costs a lot more than you give it credit to.

For comparison, take Psychonauts (an XBox game that is almost 10 years old and costed about 13 million dollars); MGS4 costed over 60 millions... Now compare it to games like Mass Effect 3 and tell me you can't understand how the budget escalated to over 100 millions.

Also, they need a lot more than 2 million copies to cope with the costs, because publishers and developers receive a percentage of the full price (last time I checked, it was close to 30 % for the publisher and less than 10 % for the developer). Add to that the fact many people don't buy a copy at a retailer price, and that they get no money at all from used games, and the prospect of a source of money that comes directly from the consumers starts looking very appealing.

OT: They have talked about it, on several occasions. While they don't have the highest opinions on stuff like Catwoman's day one story DLC, they are more receptive to concepts like DLC or packs than other people.

Yeah, and because developers and publishers can't restrain themselves we have major dramas like the 38 Studios clusterfuck. Where the predictions were totally unrealistic, with The Kingdom of Amalur needing to sell 3 million copies to break even.

I think the major problem is eye-candy. A lot of people wanted new consoles, more powerful, for greater graphical fidelity. This is the cost: better graphics, gameplay staleness, more expensive season passes and DLC, and probably less AAA games and originality (with the increased costs in development and the need for higher profits pointing to a smallest common divisor mentality).

#13 Posted by Zacagawea (1590 posts) -

Wait, what microtransactions are in Battlefield 4?

#14 Edited by Gonmog (580 posts) -

@jeust: 38 failed cause it was badly ran.And kingdoms was paying for a few games. Not itself. They needed 3 mil to cover the costs of the mmo they where making. Kingdom came from a need for cash asap. And they used assists from the mmo. Again 38 failed due to poor management.

#15 Edited by Jimbo (9804 posts) -

Yeah I don't think you really get to plead sympathy about the cost of making video games while unnecessarily being based in some of the most expensive places to live on the planet. The biggest cost is labour, and that's only so high because the cost of living where they're being made is astronomical. They could instead be made from literally anywhere else with electricity and an internet connection for significantly less money.

Let's not get carried away with how uniquely talented most of the workforce needs to be to work on AAA games. A few do, but these games are basically being churned out on a production lines, not individually handcrafted. The bulk of the workforce are the modern day equivalent of skilled factory workers, they just have delusions of grandeur.

The nickel and diming goes on because it can, not because it needs to. They wouldn't stop doing it if they suddenly started getting 'enough' money from sales, because there's no such thing as 'enough' money - more is always better. The only reason they would stop doing it is if consumers forced them stop. If sales fell off a cliff as soon as they introduce a nickel and dime model to a game then they'd stop using it, it's as simple as that.

#16 Edited by Veektarius (4775 posts) -

The crew talks about microtransactions all the time. I don't think any of them like them. What's to like? It's basically a foregone conclusion; would you rather have something for free (or included in the package price) or pay 5 additional dollars later?

Ultimately, opinions don't matter. All that matters is whether consumers reward or punish the structure

Edit: I want to add one further point. Not engaging in microtransactions isn't in itself enough to stop the DLC from being made. If a company can make the same amount by selling a game with fewer packaged-in items as it can by making a full-featured one, it will do so even in the absence of an opportunity to make more revenue by selling additional content. If you want to punish companies for having microtransactions in their games, you can't buy the game at all; at least not at full price.

#17 Edited by Jeust (10559 posts) -

@gonmog said:

@jeust: 38 failed cause it was badly ran.And kingdoms was paying for a few games. Not itself. They needed 3 mil to cover the costs of the mmo they where making. Kingdom came from a need for cash asap. And they used assists from the mmo. Again 38 failed due to poor management.

38 was developing Copernicus, and was financing the development of Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning, by their subsidiary Big Huge Games, leading to their bankruptcy.

Still is an example of the poor management in the gaming market. Budgets and profits escalation make this situation look like it could go indefinitely, when in truth it isn't possible. There is an appaling lack of restrain in developers and publishers.

#18 Posted by Hunkulese (2702 posts) -

@aterons said:

@gonmog:

I'm sorry but what you say sounds brain-washing. They need more money ? Really, really ? BF4 needs more money to put out the game it puts out ? I am sorry, but they do not need more money they are making profits and are investing those profits into advertisement.

Many indies work on a budget of a few hundred thousands or a a few millions and they develop great games, and if you will bring up the point that "they aren't as good as BF4" than I will point to you The Witcher 2, made with a budget of 8 million dollars and has the best graphics of 2011 and possibly up to date ( certainly on par with BF4 or Forza ), about 100-140 hours worth of content and quality voice acting/face animation/writing.

Mass effect does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, BF does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, Forza does not need a budget of 100 million dollars... and even if they fucking did you would still be able to sell the 2 million copies required to get 100 million dollars and 20% profit with the micro-transactions, and they sell around 6 to 20 million copies, granted only a few millions are bought a full price but that still gives you a budget of way over 100 millions and profit to the parent company.

Micro transactions are required to buy ads, which in the end are damaging to any talent-driven industry as a whole because you end up buying based on popularity instead of quality.

Racing games and FPSs should not have grinds and if they do have them they should not have a "skip grind" button which you need to pay money in order to press. If you reached the point where you think this kind of shit is "ok" because "the poor devs living in private LA houses" and "the poor share holders with their 2 years old white gold Lamborghinis" need more money than a few hundred millions to develop a game than you are plain out wrong, micro-transactions in non free to play games that sold well enough when they didn't have micro-transaction are bad. If people were to raise prices to 80$ than that would be a fair deal where the actual price of the game is on the box and people who can afford their game to be 60$ should get the credit for being able to have it so.

http://sancarlos.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/jets-fly-formation-over-area-for-ea-promotion

Please tell me again how they 'really need more money to make Battlefield 5'.

Holy cow are you clueless. I'm not sure if you're just making up numbers to suit your argument or you've received some bad info but pretty much everything you wrote is wrong. Giant Bomb has also had lots to say about how they think it's gross that the Xbox exclusives are $60 and still using free to play models.

I realize English likely isn't your first language but what are you trying to say with,

"If people were to raise prices to 80$ than that would be a fair deal where the actual price of the game is on the box and people who can afford their game to be 60$ should get the credit for being able to have it so."

It makes no sense whatsoever.

#19 Posted by mina_mina752 (121 posts) -

only free to play games should allow microtransactions to buy virtual items,points, etc..but microtransactions in PAID game is a scam

seriously guys why u keep loving this blood sucking company microsoft ?

#20 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

If they don't break the game then don't buy them. Nuff said. No one is forcing you.

#21 Edited by HH (609 posts) -

@shadowskill11 said:

If they don't break the game then don't buy them. Nuff said. No one is forcing you.

it's not that simple, people get hooked by these things, it's not clear to some folks what they're getting involved in, or there's assholes who don't have to worry about paying the bills, landing an uninformed family member in it because they don't care.

#22 Edited by MonetaryDread (2020 posts) -

@aterons said:

@gonmog:

I'm sorry but what you say sounds brain-washing. They need more money ? Really, really ? BF4 needs more money to put out the game it puts out ? I am sorry, but they do not need more money they are making profits and are investing those profits into advertisement.

Many indies work on a budget of a few hundred thousands or a a few millions and they develop great games, and if you will bring up the point that "they aren't as good as BF4" than I will point to you The Witcher 2, made with a budget of 8 million dollars and has the best graphics of 2011 and possibly up to date ( certainly on par with BF4 or Forza ), about 100-140 hours worth of content and quality voice acting/face animation/writing.

Mass effect does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, BF does not need a budget of 100 million dollars, Forza does not need a budget of 100 million dollars... and even if they fucking did you would still be able to sell the 2 million copies required to get 100 million dollars and 20% profit with the micro-transactions, and they sell around 6 to 20 million copies, granted only a few millions are bought a full price but that still gives you a budget of way over 100 millions and profit to the parent company.

Micro transactions are required to buy ads, which in the end are damaging to any talent-driven industry as a whole because you end up buying based on popularity instead of quality.

Racing games and FPSs should not have grinds and if they do have them they should not have a "skip grind" button which you need to pay money in order to press. If you reached the point where you think this kind of shit is "ok" because "the poor devs living in private LA houses" and "the poor share holders with their 2 years old white gold Lamborghinis" need more money than a few hundred millions to develop a game than you are plain out wrong, micro-transactions in non free to play games that sold well enough when they didn't have micro-transaction are bad. If people were to raise prices to 80$ than that would be a fair deal where the actual price of the game is on the box and people who can afford their game to be 60$ should get the credit for being able to have it so.

http://sancarlos.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/jets-fly-formation-over-area-for-ea-promotion

Please tell me again how they 'really need more money to make Battlefield 5'.

A game like Battlefield might make money, but like most entertainment industries, it is the tentpole releases that fund the riskier endeavors. You have to realize that the game industry is littered with failures. Tomb Raider was a failure, even though it sold a bajillion copies (last I heard it was 3.5 million), Square had so much money riding on that titles success that even five million sales would not have been enough.

Ultimately though, there is one thing that you are not grasping here. It's that microtransactions work, and in a capitalist society that means it is a worthwhile business model. There are math wizards who have figured out that a company will make more money by selling a game for less up front and then offering extras on the side. There is no going back to the way it was, it does not matter what your opinion is because the majority of the people have spoken with their wallets. If you do not like it then find another hobby because you are going to be severely disapointed this generation.

Edit: I also forgot to mention. you brought up the Witcher 2 being made for 8 million dollars, well that is because it is an eastern bloc game from a country where the developers do not have to pay their employees shit. The game cost eight million at the expense of their employees. I would rather pay extra knowing that the peons at EA were paid a decent wage. Also, CDPRoject owns GOG so its not like the game is their only source of income.

#23 Posted by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

I feel like the terse "gross" one or more of them let out when they see certain freetoplay hooks and microtransactions says all it needs to about their feeling on it.

#24 Posted by hermes (1424 posts) -
@jeust said:

...

I think the major problem is eye-candy. A lot of people wanted new consoles, more powerful, for greater graphical fidelity. This is the cost: better graphics, gameplay staleness, more expensive season passes and DLC, and probably less AAA games and originality (with the increased costs in development and the need for higher profits pointing to a smallest common divisor mentality).

I agree with that... And who is to blame for that? We are fast to jump on the wagon of attacking those greedy corporations, full of people that only want our money, while at the same time fill entire pages of Internet forums talking about how the last Call of Duty had bad graphics and how the PC is superior because graphics.

The public is the first guilty of the state the industry is in. We gloat about how we don't need graphics, and how incredible the amount of money publishers spend in some game is (which is incredible), yet they keep observing the best selling games are those plastered in Times Square.

#25 Posted by mosdl (3228 posts) -

@aterons said:
Same goes with things like BF4 a game that is basically MP only and the MP is based on progression, yet micro-transactions that allow you to basically out right cheat half the MP got only a short mention.

What micro-transactions does BF4 have, I see none available on PC.

Also BF4 vs Witcher 2 is weird - running a multiplayer service costs a lot of $ compared to the minor running costs of a single player game.

#26 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

@HH: so what? It's still a choice. Part of being grown and owning a credit card / check card is taking personal responsibility for the things you've done. If you can't afford to eat this month because you spent your grocery money on a Forza 5 VIP pack that's your problem. Get used to dumpster diving.

#27 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Microtransactions in a game you pay full price for is absolutely disgusting. Dead Space 3, Forza and Ryse are prime examples of this.

The whole "but what about the people who don't have time?" argument isn't going to cut it. There was this thing called CHEAT CODES, remember, and that was included in the game for free.

#28 Posted by BIGJEFFREY (4984 posts) -

#29 Posted by AMyggen (2878 posts) -

Patrick is writing a big article about it. He mentioned on his Tumblr and on Twitter that he would be writing about microtransactions on the Xbone, and more in general (asked about iOS games with microtransactions to play).

#30 Posted by AMyggen (2878 posts) -

@monetarydread: That Tomb Raider was considered a failure by SE says something about the development costs of (some) AAA games not being sustainable, I think. You just can't keep making games if 3.5 million sold is considered a failure for a reboot of a semi-popular but forgotten franchise.

#31 Edited by HH (609 posts) -

@shadowskill11: because some gamers are autistic, some are handicapped, some are completely dependent on others for their welfare, some cannot understand the implications, and likewise some carers won't realize the cost involved until it's too late.

it's too manipulative a process and too varied an audience to say that all choices are going to be made clearly and in full awareness of the consequences. that's how all those scams on the internet function, all those awful dodgy adds that you never click on, people click on them, people who don't know any better, that's how come they proliferate, they take advantage of ignorance and stupidity, and just because you're free and clear doesn't mean they don't have terrible consequences for somebody somewhere.

#32 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

@HH: well then if we are taking into account the fraction of one percent of the gaming population you are referring to should we also ban driving because some people drive drunk or are just terrible drivers? Should we ban gambling because some people can't stop? Shopping because some people can't balance a budget? Stop asking for a nanny state. The strong live and the weak die. That is the way of nature. Get on board or get out of the way.

#33 Edited by HH (609 posts) -

@shadowskill11: lol. get on board or get out of the way? where are you off to? some sort of a right-wing future?

and i don't know where you're getting your one percent stat from, considering i'm including kids in that group, i mean they don't usually pay for their own games, right? it's not their credit cards on the account. and the younger they are the less they're aware of what's going on.

gambling, driving, and retail are all monitored and licensed, it's only a matter of time, considering how exposed kids are to games, that micro-transaction practices are monitored too.

#34 Posted by tourgen (4478 posts) -

Yeah the industry is working hard to prove they aren't responsible enough to self-regulate

#35 Edited by Veektarius (4775 posts) -

@amyggen said:

@monetarydread: That Tomb Raider was considered a failure by SE says something about the development costs of (some) AAA games not being sustainable, I think. You just can't keep making games if 3.5 million sold is considered a failure for a reboot of a semi-popular but forgotten franchise.

I want to clarify this statement slightly. Tomb Raider did not meet expectations, but that does not mean that it didn't recoup its development costs. The popular interpretation of that statement is that Square-Enix was expecting a disproportionate share of revenues to come from Eidos in order to pay for less successful things going on in the Square end of things (e.g. at least at that point in time, FFXIV. Don't know how that game is doing now)

#36 Posted by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

What's there to talk about? They are ruining every game they touch, they are spreading to every game, and they are not going anywhere and are only going to get more frequent because there will always be enough people with more money than brains to buy the stuff to offset those of us who don't support those games. Game publishers have wanted to raise the price of games to $100+ for a long time now, but because people would scream bloody murder if they did they do it with microtransactions and by cutting content from games and hiding it behind DLC. To buy a full game these days you need to spend $60 on the game upfront, and then there's always another $20-$40 dollars in DLC on the same day. That's the $100 price point they wanted.

#37 Posted by Slag (4269 posts) -

I wish they'd actually cover DLC and microtransactions more.

I think most people have a general idea if e.g. Forza5 is a game they will like. But the various micro-transactions? probably not. Nobody covers those. I imagine a lot of people get taken on those.

#38 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

Microtransactions are almost as boring to talk about as framerate; pointing out they're there in a non free to play game and then figuring out what the "best deal" is is more than sufficient.

#39 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3804 posts) -

@slag said:

I wish they'd actually cover DLC and microtransactions more.

I think most people have a general idea if e.g. Forza5 is a game they will like. But the various micro-transactions? probably not. Nobody covers those. I imagine a lot of people get taken on those.

Do you follow Jeff on twitter or look at his Tumblr or? He has been railing against the game's transactions since it came out.

#40 Posted by Slag (4269 posts) -

@slag said:

I wish they'd actually cover DLC and microtransactions more.

I think most people have a general idea if e.g. Forza5 is a game they will like. But the various micro-transactions? probably not. Nobody covers those. I imagine a lot of people get taken on those.

Do you follow Jeff on twitter or look at his Tumblr or? He has been railing against the game's transactions since it came out.

Yeah I know he said that and I think only the hardest of the hardcore probably read his tumblr and they are ones who know already. I just think an actual official review/score somewhere that would be easy for non enthusiasts to find would be helpful to a lot of casual players.

People like you and me who bother to post on a video game forum know better than to fall for these kinds of things. OTOH people like Parents buying games for kids, who might only look at a Metacritic score etc, may have no idea.

#41 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3804 posts) -

@slag said:

@artisanbreads said:

@slag said:

I wish they'd actually cover DLC and microtransactions more.

I think most people have a general idea if e.g. Forza5 is a game they will like. But the various micro-transactions? probably not. Nobody covers those. I imagine a lot of people get taken on those.

Do you follow Jeff on twitter or look at his Tumblr or? He has been railing against the game's transactions since it came out.

Yeah I know he said that and I think only the hardest of the hardcore probably read his tumblr and they are ones who know already. I just think an actual official review/score somewhere that would be easy for non enthusiasts to find would be helpful to a lot of casual players.

People like you and me who bother to post on a video game forum know better than to fall for these kinds of things. OTOH people like Parents buying games for kids, who might only look at a Metacritic score etc, may have no idea.

These people wouldn't even know what you meant by microtransactions and are probably just used to them from the casual games they do play. They also wouldn't care enough.

If we are opposed to this we should just not participate and be vocal about the dislike. That's about all you can do.

Jeff said if he reviews the game he will knock it for the transactions. So yeah idk they are doing about all they can, they aren't making the games.

#42 Posted by pyrodactyl (1980 posts) -

@hh said:

@gonmog said:
Really in the end they are NOT going away.

but stricter regulation is not out of the question and i think likely to happen eventually. all it would take is a flood of sob stories about families who ended up broke cos their kid was left unsupervised.

there are millions of scams out there that work because people don't realize they're being scammed, and the marketing departments of games publishers are very clearly encroaching on that territory with how some of these currencies and pay-walls are presented and placed.

in Dota 2 i can see it being pretty harmless, and I'm sure there are other examples where it's under control, but as far as Microsoft, and now Sony, are concerned i find the whole thing appalling, it even bothers me that bullshit like avatar items are given equal place with legitimate content dlc in their online stores, and i really wish more industry people were calling out for restraint.

You can critisize the micro transaction in other games all you want but Dota 2 will still be one of the 2 most prominant source of ridiculous macrotransactions (some items are upward of 30 000$ on the open market) and also parts of it are a front for russian mafia money laundering . I'm not fucking with you, look it up.

#43 Posted by crithon (3138 posts) -

I don't know, I go to comic book conventions and the amount of ridiculous stuff people buy with jacked up prices. There will always be someone willing to pay the price because their value is subjective. These are the small 5% so it's not horrible exploiting people with poor impulse control.

#44 Posted by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

People say you dont have to buy it but you understand that the transactions are built into the balance of the game, right? They're balancing the game in a way to encourage you to purchase additional items which is a problem because its making the vanilla game shittier. Its not so simple as "well if people are dumb enough to buy it let them", those dummies are dictating the balance of games you play out of your favor.

#45 Edited by HH (609 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

You can critisize the micro transaction in other games all you want but Dota 2 will still be one of the 2 most prominant source of ridiculous macrotransactions (some items are upward of 30 000$ on the open market) and also parts of it are a front for russian mafia money laundering . I'm not fucking with you, look it up.

hmmm, not sure where i would look this up, but hey, even if there is a russian mobster out there with a thirty grand hat on his meepo, at least it's not dictated by, or interfering with, the actual game, right?