Do you mind microtransactions in your 60 dollar game ?

My answer every time this question comes up every few months:

As long as they aren't holding back game play/story relevant stuff to sell later, Micro transactions are 100% fine. I don't use them, but if people want to then that is fine, I'll never tell someone how to spend their money. Having stuff that doesn't take away from the game being available for those that want it doesn't take away from someone else's enjoyment of the game.

As long as the progress seems fair, I'm fine with microtransactions that speed it up. That said, I usually wait for a GOTY edition for something story-based like the Witcher 3 or a Mass Effect game.

@takayamasama: my problem with it is they tend to slow down progression to make you want to buy the mcguffin you want. Good example of these games are Company of Heroes 2 where you get a random drop every 2 hours and if your lucky it's a thing you can use or a hero soldier you wanted but, you have to be lucky or just pay 3,99 to get set hero. Same with Rainbow Six Siege witch is a great game but the progression in that game is just so freaking slow.

I agree with @takayamasama and will go one step further: I want those funds reinvested into the game. For example Overwatch and Titanfall 2 both have microtransactions but they both offer what would normally be sold as DLC (maps, characters) as free to all players. Mass Effect 3 was similar, the multiplayer DLC was all free. Using microtransactions to supplement income so you can continue to support a game is perfectly fine with me.

I'm always pro publishers being able to make more money on their games without raising the initial price, even though I almost always ignore them. Giving the consumer options is never a bad thing, and I'd rather not pay $100 for every game.

@meteora3255: That is a really good point. I don't play any of the games where the future DLC are all free and payed for by the harmless micro transactions, but from what I read about them they are doing good for the fans that play it, and that's cool to see.

Yes I mind it, but not enough to stop me from playing the game if it's something I want to play. It's a little easier to swallow DLC in the 20-40$ range, but it's still not a super great feeling.

I don't mind them in the sense that I don't see it as a problem or some sort of shady practice in general. But personally I just don't like playing games with micro-transactions. It's what got me out of Guild Wars 2 for one. I just don't like knowing that I could either grind my way or pay a small fee to get where I want faster.

I don't mind DLC but I very much mind microtranactions. I think they are kinda scummy in a full priced game but that won't stop me from playing it, I just won't engage with them.

@hunkulese: It Baffles my mind that people are defending these practices :D. It's like Dan's Taco Bell Wedding.

I don't like them, but they aren't an auto no-buy from me. It depends on how they are implemented and how egregiously they are hawked.

Generally I do think that they degrade the experience. Overwatch's progression system is a stupid broken mess (it is cosmetic so I do not care that much but it is total bullshit.) Titanfall 2's microtransactions are mostly ok. For Honor's confusing garbage system made me not buy that game (even if it is all cosmetic it just looks like a thirsty mess.)

I will say that I cannot think of a game that benefitted from microtransactions. They are always a net negative. Just not always enough to ruin an otherwise appealing game.

@meteora3255: Splatoon didn't have any microtransactions and updated (until recently) there content regularly. with new maps, events and game modes.

I dont mind them as long as they aren't in the way and as long as I don't have to pay for new maps.

It depends what it is and how it's done. For something like GTAV Online, you've already got all the content in the single player game and all of their updates have been free, so I don't mind them selling in-game currency for people to buy what they want.

I do however think designing the entire character customisation system in Overwatch first and foremost with free-to-play blind boxes in mind is pretty lame. There is no way to directly buy in-game currency or the items you want and I think that is the worst form of micro-transaction. But people don't seem to mind too much.

Fuck microtransactions. Even though it starts harmless, it always gets to a point where people who pay get an advantage no matter how little.

@soulcake: Citing one game (which released with less maps and modes than other games in its genre) doesn't invalidate my point. Splatoon was a paper thin game at launch and Nintendo needed to release additional content to make that game worth the price of admission.

@meteora3255: Splatoon and Titanfall 2 did at least have single player modes. Overwatch doesn't even have that.

@paulmako: But Overwatch launched with over double the number of maps Splatoon did as well as having a huge number of playable heroes. In terms of actual gameplay relevant content I think Overwatch launched with more than Splatoon did, even factoring in Splatoons 5-6 hour single player.

Yes, I mind. I mind very much. This is why I won't buy For Honor. It pains me to think that this is the direction triple A games are going.

I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum compared to some previous posters. I would prefer to be charged more up-front for a game, rather than it be riddled with micro-transactions. No matter how "innocent" they may seem. It all just feels really grimey to me.

As long as it doesn't detract from the main game (like making you pay for an ending, etc) then it doesn't bother me.

I look at it from these two scenarios I've encountered over the years of multiplayer gaming.

Scenario 1: No micro-transactions, instead multiple map packs over the course of the games life. Each one dwindling down the player base because you now have "people who like game and bought map packs" and "people who like game but didn't buy map packs". Halo 3's map packs were pretty much ghost lands after the first week because not everyone got them, so it turned into paying for something you almost never use unless you enjoy sitting in a matchmaking queue for 30+ minutes at a time.

Scenario 2: No map packs, instead various micro-transactions involving cosmetic goodies or sometimes EXP/Currency boosters. Map packs now become free for all that bought the game thus never fragmenting the player base. Yes Johnnyrocks207 might have a higher in game number then me next to the level due to paying for some exp boosts, but that doesn't impact my ability to enjoy the game with the mass audience that plays it, especially if the game has good MMR systems in place.

I never, ever want scenario 1 again. It wasn't even good at the time when we didn't know any other way, it was a pain in the ass and hurt most of the multiplayer games that used the model. Scenario 2, while not perfect, is better for the vast majority of players, and the vast majority of players never have to even touch the micro-transactions, yet can still benefit from constant updates, features and maps at no cost to them.

Yes micro-transactions can be horrible if done wrong, but the games that do them wrong don't stick around to matter.

Also side note, I would think people would be over the micro-transactions in games thing by this point...it's been what...5 years? That doesn't excuse games that do it poorly, and they should be continuously called out for that, but seeing people be like "ew no I don't like the trend gaming is going"....guess what? We aren't going towards that trend, we are there. We've been there a while now.

1:1 microtransactions on cosmetic items and the like don't really bother me. I rarely, if ever, buy them, but if people want to spend money on that stuff and it's another way for devs to make an easy buck, fine by me. Nor do I mind quality DLC like, say, Forza Horizon 3's Blizzard Mountain.

That being said, I absolutely despise "loot crate" systems. They're bad enough as a non-monetary progression-limiter where you're "lucky" to get what you want, and when you start selling this crap for actual cash, it gets downright shady and you're basically gambling against terrible odds. That's super-fucked.

Also, "pay to win" progression-boosting mechanics in multiplayer are bullshit, especially when paired with unreasonably sluggish progression via loot crates. That's devs intentionally putting in a roadblock and then asking people to pay not to deal with it. Fuck that.

Finally, alternate currencies are the devil. Oh, I have enough of currency #1 and currency #2, but not enough of that currency #3, all of which are required in varying amounts for the item I want. Wait, I can conveniently buy more of currency #3 with actual cash? YAY!

Much of this is becoming a predatory psychological exercise. Gating progression, dangling carrots, and expecting people to pay the troll toll is becoming far too common, and the lengths many are going in this pursuit are downright unethical.

Games should have cosmetic micro-transactions if they can do them well. They mean more money can be spent on developing the game (making the rest of the game better) and they hurt no one.

Ideally they are done like Overwatch (where you can buy them or earn them), but that's not required.

Personally, if I really, REALLY play a game, it's all I play for months on end. I enjoy having the ability to put in some extra money to change things up. At that point I've been playing the game for hundreds of hours, so I feel like the dev has earned the money too.

@notnert427: WWE Champions, on IOS/Android is pretty spectacularly bad in this. It is F2P so it doesn't quite fit but it has 6 classes of wrestlers and multiple different types of "tokens" you need to upgrade each, along with 2 different "main" currencies and everything but currency is bought via blind boxes. It is insane! If you have one particular wrestler you want to max out or at least upgrade high enough to be viable in most modes you would probably have to spend hundreds of dollars. And that would not be enough because various missions are gated to certain types of wrestlers or even specific wrestlers!

If that is the future of gaming I am going to spend the next 50 years catching up on JRPGS or something because I want no part of it.

I feel like rainbow six siege did a good job with this stuff. Lots of new free levels, new operators I can buy with earned currency and primarily cosmetic microtransactions.

I would not mind but they are often a sign of other troublesome things like game design/modes being hampered or side-lined by them. It often does not take long before you see problems crop up because of them (such as game modes being run on the back of card pack transactions, etc).

I mean, if it was always just aesthetic cosmetic stuff, or things where you can get the stuff through a fair in-game currency/progression system, it would be a-okay... but that's almost never the case, is it?

Kindly watch your step, the slope is quite slippery.

edit: players need to remember that a company does not make a single decision that is not predicated on the idea of it making the company more money. That includes game content & features (adding value/incentive to purchase; or holding content to sell you later as DLC). Things like DLC & microtransactions are much more predatory by their very nature. As they say, caveat emptor.

Yeah, F2P mechanics on phone games are really terrible. Still, I can at least kind of understand where they're coming from, as they have to find ways to make money off of games they can't charge $60 for. Not that this makes the maximized awfulness in mobile gaming okay, but it bothers me far more that this shit has bled over into regular gaming where profits can be had entirely without it.

I really think micro transactions in full priced games are a weird, weird bargain. People use the whole "it's great if you don't have time to play for so and so long to get that and that", but it just diminishes the joy for everyone who isn't paying. Like, what if you could pay real money to get the Goron Sword in Ocarina of Time? Or get the faster sail in Wind Waker? It just doesn't sit right with me. And most importantly of all, it takes you out of the game experience, which is something developers really have lost focus on. Playing through the Bioshock collection, it's fantastic to see games that just let you be in the worlds they've created and take it all in. I want games to immerse me in their world and want me to use a lot of time to get a special piece of equipment, not take me to a menu where I can buy it.

@bojackhorseman: more importantly, there used to be cheat codes that let you do the same thing for free. In Gradius you could use the Konami code to max out power ups. Now you can do the same thing only you have to pay for it? Fantastic!

If it were really about letting players play the way they wanted they would just implement a cheat menu. That is such a bullshit argument!

How are the micro-transactions in For Honor "terrible"? All you can buy with real money is the regular in-game currency. That you earn from playing the game. At a reasonable rate. It's the most fair implementation of micro-transactions I've seen in a full price game, since there is nothing that is locked from you without spending extra money (not including stuff like gold edition extras).

They've increased the steel-gain by a whole lot (about 3x-4x as much) after people said it was too low in the alpha (and it was). So I really don't see what there is to be upset about. It's the exact same as the Battlefield shortcut packs or whatever, pay money to play the game less.

I don't mind microtransactions that are cosmetic, but I don't like the trend of pushing the F2P treadmill of giving you a currency to spend which drops in minuscule amounts and "dailies" to pursue. I don't like feeling in a Skinner box.

I can usually brush it aside, but come on. I paid 60 dollars for this game, I can afford to just see a dollar amount on the things you want to sell me. Trying to entice me by giving me breadcrumbs is kinda sad and smells a little desperate. There's a reason why it was developed in F2P games.

I don't like 'em, but they don't stop me from buying a game that I'm interested in. I might even pony up some cash if it's a game I play a ton of, like Street Fighter V.

I dont like microtransactions, but i'm not going to let it stop me from enjoying games like MGS V and the latest Deus Ex. I understand why it can be justified in a multiplayer game but they shouldnt be in single player games. Loot boxes are especially egregious.

I'm fine with cosmetics, but that's it.

In theory, the idea of having micro-transactions that speed up progression, but that progression rate is fair on its own, is fine. The problem is how subjective the idea of what fair is, and how easily that becomes a slippery slope. I will still sometimes buy the games, but only after reading people's reactions and seeing if the game plays smoothly without participating in them.

I don't really mind it in practice, but I can kind of relate to how it feels like the experience is "tainted" by this somewhat foreign concept. It's a weird psychological experience of paying for a game and then seeing things pushed in your face to "buy this content". I'm not saying most games are as superficial about this as I'm making it out to be, and I don't think For Honor does it (haven't played the retail release). But there's something that is a bit uncomfortable about stepping around the extra options for money pieces. It makes sense from a user experience perspective to surface this in the interface instead of segregating it to the platform service storefront, but part of me kinda wishes you could opt out of this.

After playing the For Honor beta over the weekend with a friend we both walked away with the impression that it was ok but felt structurally like a F2P game and not worth $60 but might be fun in a few months when it drops to $20. Seeing the micro transactions already available along with the $100 "best value" coin pack has killed any interest I have. That stuff is just gross to see in a full priced game. I fear we're getting to the point where $60 merely buys you access to a game and you've gotta shell out another $30+ to get the complete experience.

Completely depends. If it's silly rainbow skins for yer guns, I don't care. If it's boosts that help you bypass intentional tedium in the game, it's disgusting.

Ill take microtransactions for cosmetic items over paid multiplayer DLC any day. If done well (Like siege) the microtransactions are somthing you never have to touch or worry about and means the playerbase isnt split into haves and have nots.

Sure there are games that do microtransactions wrong but I think refusing to play ANY game that has them in is rather stupid at this point, They are not going anywhere and you are only depriving yourself of some great games.

Also the whole blind lootbox crate thing should be recognised as gambling. I remember in a recent bombcast that China was the first country to do so ( cause it's a form off gambling ). And i hope to so other country's move to this view off thinking.

As long as no publisher and/or developer is saying "Give us $99 to have god mode in 100 multiplayer matches", I'm good. Experience boosters and so on aren't things that I'm into, but I won't complain as long as they remain innocuous and the games that they're in are still fun. It's just where we are with games these days.

I don't like it but there is really no way to stop it. Expansion packs are fine but blocking out skins and guns and other smaller things is stupid in a full priced game.

Depends entirely on what those microtransactions are. I've said before and I will forever stand by it: lootboxes are bullshit. You wanna charge me $2-5 per skin for my favorite characters? I'm down. I've spent close to $200 on costumes for DOA5 and I don't regret a single cent.

But lootboxes in a game like Overwatch? Fuck that. Lootboxes are undeniably manipulative. You're giving them money for a chance to get something you want. It's gambling. no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I could open up a couple of hundred lootboxes and never get the 1 thing I actually want. Like...in what universe is that okay? I played a couple hundred matches before I sold my copy of that game (it wasn't strictly because of the lootboxes, but that was a big reason) and not once did I get a single skin that I liked. Lootboxes are the reason I quit Smite. They're about to be the reason I quit Paragon depending on how far Epic goes with them.

It feels almost disrespectful in a way to me as a consumer. I like your shit, I'm willing to throw you more money, but you're gonna sit here and jingle some keys in front of my face? And instead of just asking for a small, flat fee, you're actually gonna try and make me gamble for those cool extras? Just fuck off.

Valve and DotA2 are the only thing to get lootboxes right, but that's thanks largely in part to the Steam marketplace where you can just buy skins cheaper than the cost of the lootbox usually. First of all, the loot table in each box is pretty small. You're not opening a box with hundreds of of possible items trying to get the few you really want. Once you get any item out of the lootbox, that item is crossed off the list until you get everything else, at which point the table resets and you can gamble all over again. Every now and then a lootbox would contain special items that were "outside" of the the loot table, but that where the Steam marketplace kicked in. You could spend god knows how much on chests or, thankfully, you could just drop a little extra, get literally exactly what you want and be on your way. That's how it should be done. Thank you Valve for treating me with some fucking decency.

I don't mind if I can play the game normally with no hiccups. For example, Metal Gear Solid 5 or Dead Space 3. Sure, you can do things faster but the core game isn't any worse for them being there and I can totally ignore them.

This is the most generic, boring and straightforward answer you can get, but it depends on how they do it and the game is balanced. I can write 50 pages on how to do it properly, but to keep it short since no one (should) care:

Game balanced very well AND continuous rewarding loop that doesn't drag too much: microtransactions OK!

Game reasonably balanced OR loop somewhat of a drag: microtransactions not appreciated, but not deal breaking.

Game balanced poorly OR loop drags forever: microtransactions BAD!

Unless it's holding back the story or something, not really. I don't play many competitive MP games (Overwatch being the only one I really got into) so progression stuff usually doesn't phase me. It also depends on how much I enjoy the game, for instance I gave GW2 a ton of my money, but I also put in over a thousand hours into that thing and I still go back occasionally and mess around. I've bought a couple of loot box packs in Overwatch because I really enjoyed that game. Warframe is another I've spent some money on, though that is your standard type of F2P game.

Compared to GTA Online, I think I threw $20 at it around the start? It seemed pretty cool then and seemed worth it, but then I kinda figured out how that was going to go and haven't done it again. Especially since every new update just costs so much damn money in-game now, it's ridiculous. The seeming loss of any SP expansion also helped to really kill my interest in the game as a whole.

You can always not spend money. If the grind is too slow, you can always stop playing. It sucks, don't get me wrong, but that seems like the only way you'd be able to help change these things. But I can mostly ignore it if the game is good enough.

I think sales, mictrotransactions, payed DLC etc. is pure shit but thats how people likes to spend their money so thats what we get. People feel smart and economic every time they get a game on sale or a best value bundle or whatever and its stupid beyond belief but it is what it is. Dont blame the game.

I still don't get the issue. If you don't want to pay for micro transactions, don't pay for them. If you want to pay for micro transactions, pay for micro transactions. Obviously a ton of people don't have a problem paying for them. How does someone buying a loot box or paying for a boost negatively affect you in any way?

@hunkulese: The inclusion of loot boxes doesn't just affect the people buying them. It means that the unlock system in those games has probably been designed in such a way as to make spending more money seem as appealing as possible. That makes the unlock system worse for people who have no interest in microtransactions than it otherwise would be in a game without them.

Do you think Overwatch would have its unlock system if it didn't have microtransactions?

For me it definitely depends on what you get from the transaction. For example, Overwatch gives you a loot box that can contain a new skin, voice line, spray, etc. None of these improve you abilities or give you a competitive edge in game. For games that give you abilities or weapons that are otherwise only obtainable through progression - I feel that this is just plain and simply dirty. We already forked over the retail value of the game and now in order to maintain our level of competitiveness (which in some situation can contribute to the enjoyment of the game) I need to pay more money?

The Req Packs in Halo 5 is a perfect example of incorporating both sides of the argument, for me anyways. If you wish to play arena mode and have a cool skin then by all means progress at the rate that you will. If you are playing Warzone and want to have a chance at better weapons, vehicles, etc. you can progress at a fair rate OR purchase more Req packs to give yourself the advantage. Regardless, in the Warzone example it ins't game breaking for anyone, in my opinion. Furthermore, 343 continue to release free maps, continued support, and interesting new game modes which are all directly funded by those that purchase the Req packs. The major difference here is that there is still an option, if you choose, to avoid an infiltration of microtransaction type elements in your gameplay.

My takeaway - I should play more Halo 5.

Remember when you had to pay $1.99 for the Konami code in Contra?