Microtransactions is a much bigger issue than always-online.

When this stuff started popping up it seemed shitty but there was one excuse. The games that had it were either free or very cheap, 99 cent kind of cheap. So if they want to charge $1 or $3 for coins or an item and the games fun then sure, it's not so bad. I've bought a few keys on Dota 2 and a hero character in Kingdom Rush. They're both fun games and were worth throwing a few extra bucks at to get more enjoyment from. The thing is a lot of these smartphone games that have it still get criticized. It's not the money, it's the fact that the games are built to force you into paying extra through either massive grinding or insane difficulty.

The biggest issue now is full priced games having microtransactions. These aren't even a few bucks either. Forza 5 and Gran Turismo 6 have $100 and $200 cars you can buy. Oh but, you can ignore it right? Just play the game and unlock them? Well people estimate Forza 5 takes over 560 hours to earn enough to buy all cars without paying. Now lets compare this to Forza 4 which has more tracks and more cars, to complete EVERYTHING including all cars and all races it only takes 340 hours. Still a long time but that's over 200 hours less to unlock more things.

Now how long is it going to be before RPG's have 1 or 2 classes unlocked and another 2 or 3 locked behind a pay wall? Wanna play a mage? Well fuck you, either finish the game on ultra hard to unlock it...or pay us $5! How long until Halo or Killzone or God of War has levels so insanely hard that it forces you to buy extra health or weapons?

How long until you have to pay a dollar to reload in battlefield? Oh, that seems too extreme? Not for EA.

This isn't the kind of thing you can just say "Don't like it? Don't buy it" because they know that and will eventually push and push and push until you MUST buy it or have a terrible time playing. And at that point you won't just not buy the microtransaction, you won't buy any games either.

I was surprised to see Micro transactions in Bravery Default.

Great post, we as a community should push back on these atrocious practices.

Games should be a complete package, DLC should be a considerable addition (like a new campaign or modes of play), and be completely optional, it should never interfere the standard on disc experience.

I think we should all just stop calling them microtransactions, because so many of them are really not micro.

I beat Ninja Gaiden on master ninja, bring that shit on.

@metal_mills said:

i like to think developers like bethesda will know better, i mean 'freedom' is their thing, so it'd go against everything they stand for, but i know it's going to turn up sooner or later in a franchise i like, maybe even dragon age 3, which would be tragic, although maybe, hopefully, bioware can put their foot down, but is that even possible when EA owns your ass?

Well, you hit the nail on the head. I just won't buy the games that do that. Then when they see the games sales dipping they will be forced to respond.

yeah its becoming a little crazy but people are seemingly still buying shitloads of EA games and i'd imagine that a lot of them are purchasing the microtransaction stuff as well.it's clearly a successful model. maybe this whole thing get pushed to the point where it is utterly ridiculous and either a large portion of consumers will still bite and microtransactions will stick around they way they are or there will be some kind of general backlash and they may have to scale back but i can't ever seeing them really disappearing.

When it gets to that point then I just won't play games as much anymore.

@metal_mills: The sky isn't falling...this is pretty much par for the course. We already have had character classes "locked behind a paywall" in Borderlands 2 and that didn't ruin the gaming world OR that game in particular. (And they weren't micro-transactions to unlock either at $15 for each additional class)

People have been whining about the impending apocalypse due to DLC and microtransactions since horse armor but I've yet to play a game that I felt was incomplete that required DLC.

Using a racing game to show how shitty everything is is also pretty silly. They've been using the earning credits to buy cars model longer than microtransactions have been around and there's really no reason to own all the cars anyway. If you enjoy the game, play it and unlock the cars you want. If you're the kind of person that wants all the cars unlocked to actually race and tune all the cars, you're probably the kind of person that'll put in hundreds of hours into the game anyway.

I'm all for keeping microtransactions in games. It keeps games at $60 and lets me give extra support to the developers that I think earned it.

I think people should buy microtransaction games used or not at all and tweet the developers and publishers why. It's not enough to just not buy them, they need to know that they didn't get a sale and why.

Well, companies gotta make that money somehow. Games get more expensive to make, and even if the gamer population is growing year over year, that may not be enough to sustain some types of games.

So publishers ask themselves: what if instead of games costing $60, they cost $60-$200? And only the stupid people with way too much extra cash pay anything over the regular $60. It's really not that different from "collector's editions" of games, where you're paying like $20-$40 extra for a bunch of shit that costs very little to manufacture. Yes, sometimes microtransactions affect the games, so in that case, be willing to stop buying from publishers/developers whose games are particularly rotten with microtransactions.

That's just an asinine thing to say. There's no indication of a movement in that direction and you saying it's going to turn up sooner or later is just you thinking, "That would suck, everyone hates me and doesn't want me to have fun, it must be happening."

We've already seen the direction Bioware and EA are going in with Mass Effect 3 and the monatization attempt it didn't affect the core game at all.

Microtransactions have never been and will never be the issue. Shitty design decisions are the issue.

Azuras Wrath had the real ending as DLC, Gears of War Judgement had a tiny number of multiplayer maps at launch but had a season pass ready to go(This was one of Jeff's major complaints about the game), Forza 5 omitted several major tracks and made them DLC, Mass Effect 3 cut a major character out and made it day one DLC(Also a major complaint from GB). Also one of the most significant story points in the entire series in Leviathan.

The way I've mentally approached this is that new games should really cost $80, and microtransactions are just a way for someone else to pay for part of my game. Of course this only works when there's a free alternative to unlocking content, and gameplay balance isn't skewed toward pushing you into purchases. I feel like right now for the most part, most developers would rather make a successful game based on it being a good experience rather than potentially push people away. But I agree though, some of this next gen stuff seems pretty suspect, but I think it's just people trying stuff to see what works. If a $60 game requires another $20 to unlock all the characters, and there's no free method, then that's just part of the value proposition and I'm that more likely to wait for a sale whether I buy the extra content or not. If a game has an energy mechanic or realtime progression element that I can pay to speed up, then I'll just play something else while I'm waiting. If a game is excessively grindy or unfun to actually play, then I would question what I'm actually getting out of playing the game and would go play something else entirely.

That's the exact issue though. Forza 5's progression is fucked precisely because they want you to pay to make it go faster. It's the free-to-play model applied to a $60 game.

Putting microtransactions in a game can only lead to shitty design decisions. That's also what makes them way more disgusting than DLC, which I never had any problem with.

My solution is to just not buy games that do this. Or wait until they release the "real" version with all of the good DLC included.

@alanm26v5: But here's the thing, here in the UK, XONE and PS4 games have increased in price, retailing between £44.99-49.99 almost everywhere. Bringing in the conversion reveals that our games are close to your $80 price tag. I paid £44.99 for Forza 5 and what I got was a glorified demo with Pay 2 Play economics deeply intertwined within the design philosophy. All the reviews were keeping hush hush about this aspect for whatever reason, and all I can say is I feel ripped off big time.

Can't really say I agree with the premise here. I don't think microtransactions were ever justified by game price. If they ever were justified it was on their own merit. We have 2 different kinds of microtransactions. One is the one where you buy something in-game that will last forever (like hats) which is somewhat accepted, and the other is when you either just buy time or convenience.

There's no reason the model where you get a game and then can purchase extra stuff in the game can't work even if you payed a good amount for the game. Would it really be terrible if you bought Mass Effect 4 for 50 bucks and it came with one of six classes and you needed to unlock the others at 2 bucks each ? Not that that would ever happen at that price point, but I don't think we should really worry too much about content being locked out. Those types of microtransactions only make game prices drift on a set scale, much like DLC has already done for years.

The type of microtransactions that are actually lucurative to publishers are the ones where you just buy a service, as they are a constant stream of income. They are also the ones that change games as the gameplay gets molded to push you into buying them. However I don't think those have yet been accepted by the traditional gaming audience, even in free games. And even while those kinda games have an audience I don't think the two overlap that well. It's a seperate market that's new and unexploited, but at worst all it will do is divert attention away from more traditional games, not infiltrate and transform them. Basically, what we're seeing is similar to what we saw with Wii and casual/movement games.

huh? i said maybe DA3 will do it, because they're owned by EA. i don't appreciate micro-transactions and i don't play SWTOR or the multiplayer in ME3 because of them, and you seem to think that the core game of dragon age will be safe from harm because nobody's announced anything to the contrary, fair enough, but no-one can deny that this is a movement, gaining strength, and with EA at the forefront. so how is it asinine to anticipate further developments along those lines?

and don't presume to misinterpret what i said into some bizarre quote like that thing up there.

I agree micro-transactions, by themselves, aren't the problem. it is the blurred value-based line that companies have started crossing in order to get people to pay for additional content that isn't "additional" in the first place. I totally disagree with those that say Forza 5's micro-transaction policy isn't unbelievably broken. The game has less cars and tracks than previous iterations, and hides some of those track and cars behind a slew of micro-transaction that, in all, just make the game more expensive. I am all for micro-transactions, but let them be for something "in-addition-to" an already lush and complete product.

I think the problem with that is that if you don't buy the games outright it might force them to do even something more drastic as pushing even more microtransactions to get more money.

As long as it doesn't gate progress outright than its fine, we should just not bother with it and eventually when they'll once again get around to gather data that it's not really working (or perhaps the opposite) then companies will again have to adjust. If a game is good and has microtransactions, I can just play the game and choose not to make a microtransaction. I think it's better that way than outright boycotting or avoiding it.

IMO, this is also just a part of the more prevalent issue that is related to gaming budgets in general, wherein they are ballooning to tens or even hundreds of millions and companies have to resort to doing methods such as microtransactions, season passes or making annualized sequels in order to ensure that they break even or make a profit.

How about "Greedy Developer Fucks Transactions"?

microtransactions prey off addiction.

Games that have them should have a warning on the box.

That's simply not true.

Actually it's completely true. Like I mentioned there are tons of phone games now that force you into microtransactions. Even Kingdom Rush that I enjoy has an INSANE difficulty ramp half way into it. It's virtually impossible to beat it without spending money. Even with the better cheap hero character I bought I can't beat them. Same with those games like Candy Crush where to progress you need to spend money. Or even the worst kinds where you run out of energy/lives and either have to wait 24 hours or buy more. These aren't good game designs, they're built to screw the player over. The fact that Forza 5 drags out the grinding by 200 hours for less content than it's predecessor is nothing short of total bullshit.

Yeah, they're shitty, but that's a choice the developers made. DotA2 is lousy with microtransactions, but absolutely none of them are gameplay relevant. You could ignore them 100% and still have a complete game experience. Some full-retail games have implemented microtransactions as a shortcut for people who have more money than time, without needlessly stifling standard game progression.

A game doesn't become fucked the instant the decision is made to include microtransactions. It becomes fucked once developers start crippling the game in order to drive more people towards microtransactions.

Microtransactions essentially ruined something I enjoyed. I actually had fun playing the ME3 multiplayer for a time, but after a while, it became clear that it was made to be so grindy and so random just for the sake of pushing transactions. It eventually pushed me away from it and the same was definitely true for FIFA Ultimate team, it was built as a vehicle specifically to push microtransactions so I never engaged in it.

I've never bought any microtransactions (in any game) and I never will for any game I paid for. I've seen that Tales of has been doing this for a while, I'm worried more RPG studios may do it. I hope that with Persona 5, Atlus/Sega know better (and I'm fairly sure they do) not to push microtransactions on this stuff with a game that's been built from the ground up for a console that supports it.

And it's a shitty game design choice. That's what we're saying. And no, in a lot of them you can't ignore it 100% and still have a complete experience. The design is they dangle the carrot in front of you just long enough to make you want to enjoy it and keep playing, then slap a BAD experience into it and giving them money makes it better. How is making a game with less content and 200 hours more grinding not sound like it's crippling it?

@metal_mills: It's not inherently a shitty game design choice any more than creating an expansion pack is a shitty game choice. You might say that expansion packs are for games that are already complete, but there was nothing forcing developers in the age of expansion packs to make them anything more than added features that "should" have already been in the original game. I'm sure there are some examples of this, though they aren't coming to mind. It's beside the point, either way.

When did I ever say anything like that?

Well the way you were saying it sounded like you didn't think those kind of designs were shitty. If I'm mistaken then I take it back. Your example Dota 2 is a positive case for microtransactions because you don't NEED to buy anything. There's no grind, no locking you out, and a lot of it is just for looks. It's also free. Yet they make a killing. Big companies like MS and EA don't give two fucks about that pricing model. They want to force people into buying it through tedious acts and frustration.

I still say vote with your money. It's been working for me, sure I've missed out on all EA titles besides PvZ2 (which as we knew they would ruin). So yeah, if they keep pushing this, it's as easy as not buying it still. There are plenty of other games to play on a vast array of systems that don't do this shit yet. Support those and don't give in just because someone is supposedly pushing you to. It's still your wallet and EA and whatever else is not the force that's forcing you to give them money. If you find yourself unable to resist buying something that you know is bad, seek help.

@metal_mills: I totally agree with Fora. It is bad because it was build around these microtransactions but with GT& it is different.

A. You can not even buy credits in the game itself but only in the PSN store

B. You have the same or some say even better progression system than it was in GT5 which means you can earn easily 2 million for later races.

C: You still win a lot of cars through cups, events and so on.

Microtransactions in GT6 are an option but it was not build around them and this is the big difference.

The sad truth is that 5-10 people can not buy a game because they disapprove of microtransactions, and all they need is one person willing to spend 5-10 people's worth of money for it all to balance out. And people will spend that much money on games, and a lot of people don't see the problem with paying $60 and then paying more. It's kind of an evolution of the MMO subscription fee, a way to keep people on the hook and keep having them put money into the system. There have been articles written about how microtransaction business models prey on people who have a) addictive personalities, b) poor impulse control, c) more money than sense, or d) any combination of the above, and that the minority funds the experience of the majority in F2P games. Does it suck? Yeah. Is it a good way for developers to extract extra value from purchasers in an ultra-competitive market at a time where sales are down and development costs are way up? Absolutely.

I don't think microtransactions are for us, the enthusiast crowd, but they work really well for the intended audience. I wouldn't count on them going away soon.

I love it when frustration and tedium are built into games as a way to get me to spend money on a game that I'm already frustrated with!!!!!

I also like thinking a lot about real life money while playing video games, that's fun, right!?

Micro transactions are not evil by themselves, but shitty companies like EA will always fuck you over as much as they can, and will implement them in an intrusive way.

It's kind of shitty, but the way I look at it, games like this will probably go on sale/be free at some point in the future, and it will likely happen faster than it does now; Forza 5 will probably be $20 within a month, and the publisher/developer will be fine with it as they will still make money, they will continue to make money for the two years it takes before Forza 6 comes out and they will make money from used game sales. That $60 price you pay now is just a fanboy premium and a way to make sure your game is sold at retail.

I think this model would work much better if they put codes in with the game for say $40 worth of ingame currency that expired within 1-2 months, whatever the duration they plan the $60 shelf life to be. League of Legends did this 4 years ago when it came out, the game was free online and $20 at retail, the retail package included a coupon for $30 worth of ingame currency, it cost them nothing to do this and it let retail sell their game, and nobody felt bad about buying it, it was smart, these newcomers to the microtransactions game need to get smart and they need to do it fast, this stuff has already been figured out...

I do not object to the concept of microtransactions. I believe that games are a business and they are finding new ways to increase the price of the game without actually increasing the initial cost of purchase. My only real problem with microtransactions is that I do not feel that companies are pricing them appropriately. Take Forza for example, I would not mind spending $3 or $4 on a car in that game. Its the fact that they charge $20 - $100 that bothers me.

People can argue until they are blue in the face that MT's aren't the problem and it's all just shitty design. The cold hard truth is that 90% of the time shitty design is led by the integration of a MT model. For every Valve with a reasonable MT model in a free to play game there's and EA or a Microsoft trying to jam the same phone game model into full retail releases in order to double dip consumers while providing a worse experience.

You are talking about massive multinational corporation here, not a team of passion project developers. In those spaces business decisions have an impact on all levels of the design process. If the bean counters and the executives run the numbers and find a way to exploit more money out of the general consumer base then you can bet your ass that becomes a new directive.

I'm fairly certain that no one actually developing titles like Forza or Dead Space actually wanted to build the free to play model into their full on retail release, the pressure just came from on high to get that shit in there.

This stuff has to stop, end of story.

this is consoles dude u know consoles motto "no thing's free" they will charge money from u in any way they can from stupid avatars, to paid multiplayer, to microtransactions and lame DLC's

makes u wonder what all the fuss made about oblivion's horse armor, we see way more stupid dlc's today

the bottom line only free 2 play games should allow microtransactions becoz they need a source of money to keep running

paid games with microtransactions is just a another way to squeeze u for more money

Don't buy things you don't want to buy.

Crappy DLC / IAP are crappy, don't by crappy games don't buy crappy DLC / IAP

Good DLC / IAP are good, buy good games and good DLC / IAP

It's not rocket surgery.

DLC and microtransactions are both cancer. I don't know why they didn't keep the old business model of "release a full game at $50, then release a $20 expansion pack a year or so later that's basically its own game." No, now we have 70% of a game, and the rest is Season Passes or store-exclusive DLC. It's fucking disgusting what's happening to the industry.

Golden rule: Never buy a season pass. You're basically pre-ordering disappointment.

I fell behind on video gaming during the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation and horseshit like DLC, micro-transactions and online passes have basically assured that I'll never catch up since now I almost exclusively buy used games years after they come out. Preferably GOTY versions if they exist. Fuck this industry and its nickel, diming and dollaring bullshit. Give me back the days of cartridges containing full, finished games any day. Also GIT OFFA MAH LAWN!

I hate both but I actually would rather have micro than always online. Mainly because so far any game that has had micro hasn't been that big of an issue for me, Dead Space 3 was the only one that really bothered me. I don't like always online because I am a single player gamer 98% of the time and requiring me to play online when I shouldn't is a instant turn off of your game. I was interested in Diablo 3 and didn't get it, same with Sim City

Master Ninja will be 20 dollars to unlock...

Corporations will push until something finally gives. That's just the nature of the beast. Kind of like children, in a way.

So let them destroy franchises. Let them buy another developer and turn their game into a micro-transaction FTP game... well, first announce it , then change the name of the developer to BioWare, then back to their original name, then dissolve that developer, then switch the project to another developer you own... you get the point.

There'll be a Kickstarter for a reimagining of all your favorite franchises that get crushed down the line.