Reguardless of platform, microtransactions, especially in non-free to play games are something that quickly become anything ranging from mildly annoying all the way to disgusting. Purely cosmetic changes are one thing, but anything else is borderline game-breaking for me.

I don't think it is intrusive but I know it is there. In Forza the only place you see it is once you load the track you're racing on, you'll see it on the pre-race menu. It is a small 'Y' icon up in the corner with the message beside it that says "want to level faster?" or something like that. You have to look for it but it is there.

I haven't seen anything in Dead Rising 3 or Lego Marvel Hereos. In NBA2K14 it is an option in a 2nd or 3rd level menu (the menus are a mess regardless). Those are the only games I have so I can't speak to any others.

It's nowhere near as intrusive as something like a mobile phone game, but you'll notice it every now and then. When you go to purchase cars in Forza 5 or skills in Ryse, it will have a menu saying whether you want to purchase it with in game currency or with paid currency. Jeff definitely pointed out that it's kinda weird that there are two accelerator notifications on one screen, but it's not too intrusive. Those are the best examples, though they are present in Powerstar golf,

My main gripe with Forza is that for the first few hours you gain credits so slowly that if feels like the game is ploying you to buy stuff, and buying a Pagain Huayra will cost you 20 bucks, which sucks.

If the micro transactions were Forza 4 style, it'd be cool, but otherwise the game's pretty spiffy.

it depends on the game.

Ryse- I played all the way through the campaign and never once felt like i wasn't getting enough xp in fact i thought they gave almost to much. the multiplayer i can't speak to that tho.

Forza 5- can def be a pain because of how the game is structured, but it also depends on how you play the game. For me it hasn't been an issue because i've been playing just the career mode and i've been going in order though the events and have had plenty of cash. i just reccently hit 1.3 million credits earned and it took me around 15 hours of gaming or so. but if you just want to get in there and drive high end cars then ya you are def going to need to spend some cash. turn 10 has addressed it and said the economy is getting fixed so that def shows it had flaws.

other than those 2, every other game i've played i haven't even noticed they existed other than normal DLC that all games have theses days

All that said Dead Rising 3 is probably the best launch game of wither console and there are no micro transactions.

@brich: The problem isn't how visible the transactions are, the problem is that micro-transactions decrease the amount of content in a game. Forza 5 is a good example of this; the game doesn't feel complete compared to any of the previous Forza's. A ton of content was stripped out and the only explanation is dumb PR garbage from Turn 10.

I haven't found it intrusive at all since getting Forza on Xmas Day. I mean it says hit Y to accelerate on every menu but other than that nothing. Only way I found it slightly annoying is seeing a car I really want and it's a DLC car so I'd be forced to buy one of the packs or pay $2.99 which I'm not going to do. There are so many other cars it is never too much of an issue.

None of the MS pubbed games are near as bad about micros as some would have others believe.

I have and play Forza 5, Powerstar Golf, and Ryse, and micros are there if you look but not any more obnoxiously than the other 3rd party games.

Forza does have a reminder message about increased lvling speed, and two buttons on one screen for that option, and I agree that is too much, but Turn 10 has reacted quickly and given everyone cars and tons of in game credits to make cash purchases very superfluous too.

@zombie2011 said:

The existence of microtransactions may seem innocuous at first, but rest assured that they are not describing it in an over-the-top manner. It is a bad precedent for you, the player. It pits the players' interests directly against profits. The people risking the money will inevitably pressure developers (they may be one and the same) to stretch the players' annoyance almost to its breaking point, where they are fed up with the grind enough to pay to make it stop but not enough to quit playing entirely. Content gets stretched thin. Playing for fun becomes playing out of compulsion. Intentionally making your game worse should not be reinforced by financial rewards.

What lifts it into "disgusting" territory, for me, is the process of slapping just a little bit more bullshit on each new entry in beloved game franchises. It turns the audience's passion against them to slowly erode the ethical standards of the industry. What are they going to do, not play the next installment of their favorite game from their favorite developer? Why do that when they can point to the shitty mobile games leading the charge and rationalize that their guys are the good guys by still using lube when fucking them over? Meanwhile the abused flock lashes out not at the abusers, but the people who try to point out the gradually escalating abuse. If it weren't depressing to watch, it would be funny.

Rather than go into an essay on conflicts of interest and how people who see themselves as inherently good rationalize themselves into making bad decisions, I'll skip to the TL;DR summary. If you want the long version, I suggest reading The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty by Dan Ariely. When money is on the line, people (especially those who are more creative than average) will struggle to come up with a way to rationalize that the bad decision which benefits themselves is actually somehow good for the customer. For example, this is how we end up with bullshit excuses like allowing people to have the privilege to pay extra to avoid playing the game for which they already paid sixty dollars.

So I gave a lot of thoughts on this subject during the last few months. Maybe because I bought an Xbox One or maybe because more and more games have micro-transaction built-in directly in 60$ games.

I don't think I like it but, I here are my questions :

- Why do people get angry when they are offered to pay money to; skip ahead, have better gear etc.? Why would someone be mad to be, at every turn of the game, advertised they can have a better car than the one they drive if they pay real money, right now, right here.

To me it never made sense that someone who wanted to pay to essentially NOT PLAY the game they bought to PLAY. If the micro-transactions is made "right" it will not hide features that are available by playing the game, plain and simple. People thinking otherwise just need to accept it, it's the world we live in and there's not much efficient way to get around it except by being wise about it right?

So the answer to me is : DESIRE.

The first desire comes from owning the game, then playing it, after that hopefully enjoying it. Then come other desires that we all have and that had not yet be monetized. Get better gear faster, finish the game faster cause I want to play another one, cause I want to see the story etc. The desire to have a better car than the one I own, a better one than the one my friend got and is bragging me about.

If you can't resist to your desire or if you refuse (can't) to pay money to get it right away when the option is there, you will be frustrated. If we would be able to resist these desires, there wouldn't even be a thread about that right now cause we would be enjoying the games by PLAYING them. That is to say, some games will lock away content behind an additional fee. That is bad and there's no defending that, right? Well, what if that great game was only 20$ instead of 60$ and for additional fees you can get the rest of it? What is the right price for these kinds of game then? I don't think there's an right answer for that. Simply because there will always be people who will desire things more than others.

Steam understood it. They created a game called steam where the goal is to fill up the desire to own as many games as possible. They stripped out all the other desires by focusing on the first one. By reducing the prices so much, almost anybody can get most of the games on steam. How many people have bought games on steam that they never played and will probably never played just because the price, at one point, was so low that they could fill the desire to own the game. First desire: owning the game. Playing it comes in second for steam. I know that people will say otherwise. That they played or will play every game they purchased out of steam. Good for them. They are smart about it and control their desire of owning more games than they can play. I think most people can't say the same. As I content creator and an "artist" myself, I don't like the idea of someone paying me 10$ for my album just to say that they own it. I want people to enjoy it (or not) and listen to it, experience it. I don't do it for money.

So in short, companies in the business of making money will always find ways to fill up your desires. You just need to be smart about it and not give in.

You can let me know if you want me to delete it since it's quite long. I'll create a blog entry out of it.

The amount of over-thinking both some users and the Giantbomb crew gives to this pressing matter is mind blowing to me, almost make the good old: "maybe go outside a bit more" appropriate.

Said so I've spent easily more than $50 on LOL characters over the last 3 years, not bad considering the amount of hours I've put into it. I played Ryze, Dead Rising 3 and most EA games without even looking at the store, Microtransactions are like any other transaction if is worth it to you: go buy it, if not keep moving.

Like for realsies spend your time and energy playing videogames then go out live life, this meta game about industry theoricals and speculation is so lame, remains me of neogaf.

@donpixel: Overthinking on video games forums? oh well. I always thought I was coming here for the secret of life...dam.
let me know when you find it.

:)

@donpixel: This man speaks the truth. I watched Brad play DOTA for an hour the other day and he spent a TON of money on basically hats. Live. In front of people. I was ashamed for him, but apparently he wasn't ashamed himself. Your mileage may vary.

And for the still fretting and on-topic, it depends on the game (duh!).

I personally don't see the big deal over microtransactions. I dont know why people get so upset over it. Its an option for people who may not have the same amount of time to grind a game out. I.e. Having kids or multiple jobs. I don't use it myself and seeing it doesn't bother me at all

I don't think they're that bad. They're there if you want them. Otherwise play your game. Press "Y" to boost... or press "A" to continue as normal. Whatever. Jeff's drivatar is still an asshole. rubbing is racing, but doing PIT maneuvers is another issue entirely.

To be fair, none of these launch games are going to make back their development costs. So it's less offensive to me now as it would be in say two years.

It seems like we're facing microtransactions, ads, or a price hike to keep up with the cost of development.

I laughed a little when I went to Kotaku a few minutes ago. Sort of ties up to what I was saying about the microtransaction "steam game". Hats anyone?

I haven't had any issues with it. I've played quite a bit of Forza, which many seem to consider the most intrusive, and I haven't even so much as looked at a screen that asked me for money. To each his own, but I don't let silly, avoidable things bug me.

1st party games aren't as bad as 3rd party games (sports title, in particular).