Support NeoGAF

[*Splinter]

I'm ok with all purely cosmetic MTs BUT that's because I don't really care about cosmetics. I can see how it would be different for someone who does care though.

However, even though the microtransactions themselves don't bother me, I'm still aware of how their existence negatively effects my experience. In Rocket League you get a close up of the winning team at the end of the match. This only exists for the sake of selling keys ("look what these guys have! You could have it too if you unlocked all those crates you've been hoarding!"). It only lasts 10 seconds or so but what's 10 seconds multiplied by several hundred games played? Hours of my game time wasted on essentially advertisements.

Black Ops 3 is the same, closer to 30 seconds per game there. Think Uncharted 4 was pretty bad for this as well. Its time wasted for everyone, even those who think they don't care about cosmetics.

 

[oni-link]

Microtransactions in full-price games.

This

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

My personal problem is when games offer random boxes (or whatever) for money, but you don't get any sort of listing of the odds involved.

That should not be legal. Just like slot machines and such have their odds posted, so should loot boxes. At least the ones that cost money

This.

Random loot boxes are such bullshit. Even more so in full retail games

 

[Compsiox]

P2W in a Full Priced game.

 

[Chuckie]

Good:

• Cosmetic items that amount to tipping the developer for a game you love
• Meaningful content expansions for a game that already feels like a complete, full-priced offering

Bad:

• Pay-to-win competitive advantages for sale
• Consumable items of any kind
• Content that felt like it was missing from the full-priced offering, like a meaningful ending
• Any form of gambling for rare items
• Constant in-your-face offers

This.

 

[oni-link]

As a side question, has anyone here never spent money on a microtransaction?

I never have, as I see them as a rip off at best to manipulation (pay to maybe get a useful item) at worst, but I've never found them necessary for me to enjoy a game

Games that are built around microtransactions tend to games I don't enjoy, so they have been easy to avoid

The issue I have with them is when games are designed to sell them to players the core design of the game is normally altered in a way that I perceive as negative

On paper cosmetic items are all good and well, but often this means the dev will slowly shit all over a games art design as they pump out more and more cosmetic items to sell

 

[Mandoric]

As a side question, has anyone here never spent money on a microtransaction?

I never have, as I see them as a rip off at best to manipulation (pay to maybe get a useful item) at worst, but I've never found them necessary for me to enjoy a game

Games that are built around microtransactions tend to games I don't enjoy, so they have been easy to avoid

The issue I have with them is when games are designed to sell them to players the core design of the game is normally altered in a way that I perceive as negative

On paper cosmetic items are all good and well, but often this means the dev will slowly shit all over a games art design as they pump out more and more cosmetic items to sell

Those of you raring to post "That's me! I'm pure!": make sure you have never continued in an arcade game.

 

[spekkeh]

Microtransactions are the line.


But for the sake of the argument, any microtransaction that is intransparent (e.g. lootboxes, these should simply be banned and the developer fined) and any microtransaction that make the actual game feel incomplete (I want my money back).

 

[oni-link]

Those of you raring to post "That's me! I'm pure!": make sure you have never continued in an arcade game.

I think there is a difference between going to an arcade where you know your money is going to pay for a few minutes of play and starting a 100 hour RPG and then finding out you can buy 1.5x EXP DLC booster packs

You know the arcade game is designed to be fun, but hard, and your game won't last long

When I see things like Bonus EXP or grinding DLC in RPGs, it makes me think that maybe they balanced the game perfectly to be a fun game with a smooth difficult curve, then took the formula to determine how much EXP you needed for each level and multiplied it by 1.1 or 1.2, to make it just a tad more tedious, in order to incentivise people to by those booster packs

When that kind of DLC is planned and designed and put in the game, they will have targets on how much of it they want to sell, and someone will need to explain to a higher up somewhere why they hit or missed those sales targets. That's just business

Yeah some old school arcade games were unfair as that earnt more money, but those devs sacrificed game design for that, those unfair arcade games are worse games and less fun to play now because they're unfair

 

[Mooreberg]

I don't deal with them. Even the pocket change ones are six new Steam games on a bundle site. Overwatch is probably the least disgusting about it, but I also don't care about skins I cannot see during game play. Maybe it is a huge problem for someone else with different expenditure tendencies. Getting duplicate items when you have acquired less than 1% of cosmetic junk does come off as a weird attempt to funnel people towards paid loot boxes.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I feel like the line was crossed when Gears 4 had a $20 DLC that was basically a bunch of skins, and I recall people saying on this very forum that they'd bought it:

https://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/20...g-dlc-in-gears-of-war-4-cod-infinite-warfare/

Today's new Gears box is a cross promotion with hip-hop duo Run the Jewels, who had already released a music video connected to the game in September. Microsoft is charging a whopping $20 (£17) for the add-on, which includes the following: two skin unlocks (featuring RTJ members Killer Mike and El-P, with unique spoken dialogue), a single teal-blue skin for every weapon in the game, two emblem designs that can be applied to player profiles (only seen between matches), and two one-time XP "bounties" that can be claimed when playing an online versus match as either RTJ member.

As of right now, none of the contents in this loot box can be unlocked using the in-game currency that is doled out in online modes such as versus and "Horde" co-op.

 

[Caayn]

A few lines that have been crossed way too often for me:

• The moment micro-transactions cost more than a full-game. (What happened to the word "micro" in micro-transactions?)
• One-time consumables (potion packs, in-game currency, special in-game space bucks, boosters, etc.).
• Gambling (loot boxes). Bonus points if the chances aren't officially listed. (Every game with this mechanic should be immediately rated the same age as the minimum gambling age in the respective countries it releases.)
• In-game pop-ups asking for real world currency. Talk about an immersion breaker.
• Pay-to-win style micro-transactions in a paid game.
• Items that are exclusive to micro-transactions.

In the past I've purchased a few micro-transactions, and I regret purchasing them.

 

[jelly]

Random loot boxes.

 

[Ominym]

My personal problem is when games offer random boxes (or whatever) for money, but you don't get any sort of listing of the odds involved.

That should not be legal. Just like slot machines and such have their odds posted, so should loot boxes. At least the ones that cost money

Not to mention the fact that these are essentially slot machines for all ages. No age minimum required to gamble on these.

Currently I find these to be the most aggregious offender and I highly suspect we will see a court case that determines wether or not these will be allowed to continue in the near future.

 

[Fishook]

Stopped playing multiplayer games due to micro transactions and loot boxes. Don't mind playing for stuff as expansion packs and stuff.

Games are getting expensive if you play loads of games like myself. especially if you struggle to find time to play stuff.

 

[Mandoric]

I think there is a difference between going to an arcade where you know your money is going to pay for a few minutes of play and starting a 100 hour RPG and then finding out you can buy 1.5x EXP DLC booster packs

You know the arcade game is designed to be fun, but hard, and your game won't last long

When I see things like Bonus EXP or grinding DLC in RPGs, it makes me think that maybe they balanced the game perfectly to be a fun game with a smooth difficult curve, then took the formula to determine how much EXP you needed for each level and multiplied it by 1.1 or 1.2, to make it just a tad more tedious, in order to incentivise people to by those booster packs

When that kind of DLC is planned and designed and put in the game, they will have targets on how much of it they want to sell, and someone will need to explain to a higher up somewhere why they hit or missed those sales targets. That's just business

Yeah some old school arcade games were unfair as that earnt more money, but those devs sacrificed game design for that, those unfair arcade games are worse games and less fun to play now because they're unfair

You are assuming that no modern game designer is hitting the same "if you're average you're fine, here's a leg up if you suck but don't want to practice" sweet spot, and that modern players can't shun Greenlight detritus the way older players shunned anything with the Midway logo. It was business then too, and it evened out.

RPG designs in particular are also notoriously iffily curved even pre-microtransactions - see FF5 being beatable as a single, frogged and poisoned, level 1 character - and pitched as power fantasies to the point where the modern quarter-feeder will pump money in to fill bars long past when it's game-relevant - see even FF1 climbing long past the point where a single autoattack will drop Chaos, and later damage cap additions which just reinforce the futility while still letting you drop 32x9999 on a 50k HP enemy before he has the chance to react..

 

[Majukun]

for me it's really simple, you are f2p, please do all the microtransactrions you want,you have to eat...you are a 60 dollars/euros retail game, I'm not buying you if you dare have microtrsavtions...the only "exception" is fifa,but it's because i get the game gifted to me every year..and also i don't touch ultimate team anyway.

oh,i guess rocket league would also count for their boxes with loot,but when i bought the game there were no boxes and i don't pay to open them anyway.

 

[A-V-B]

We've obviously shown there is no line. At all.

 

[spekkeh]

I should probably start mailing the conservative parties in the European Parliament that American companies are defiling the minds of our children with their gambling practices. See if those parties have some use after all.

 

[SPCTRE]

Bad:

• Pay-to-win competitive advantages for sale
• Consumable items of any kind
• Content that felt like it was missing from the full-priced offering, like a meaningful ending
• Any form of gambling for rare items
• Constant in-your-face offers

 

[amdb00mer]

Anything that gives another player an advantage for paying more is over the line. Anytime a developer purposefully slows down progress to players that don't pay is over the line.

They're usually over the line.

This right here. There should never be a pay to win setup, but it has happened and will continue to.

 

[pagrab]

Loot boxes you can buy an consumables. This shit is disgusting.

Around 10 years ago I was visiting a friend in London and told him that I want to see an arcade of some sorts. He was completely uninterested in games so he thought that I am asking about some kind of casino.

Back then it seemed a funny misunderstanding to me as I felt that video games and gambling have very little in common with each other (as even gambling games used only fictional game money). Today I don't feel this way at all.

 

[Kthulhu]

Some people are incredibly delusional. Y'all expect to pay $60 for a game, when games cost more than ever to make and cost less thanks to inflation than they did 15 years ago.


Microtransactions are an amazing deal. They let people buy games for cheaper than they should cost, and allow other people to foot the bill. Those micro transaction payers are subsidising your $60 game.
Without them, you'd be paying $100+.

Microtransactions are great, as long as they're not pay-to-win or required. They allow more people to have access to more games.

Except games don't have to cost that much to make. That's the industry's fault not mine.

Not to mention Nintendo doesn't have microtransactions in ARMS or Splatoon, yet I'm getting plenty of free content.

Overwatch sold several times more than both those games combined. They can more then afford to give out free content.

If games had to be more expensive (they don't) then I'd rather see something like Titanfall 2's cosmetic DLC, instead of a loot box or premium currency system.

 

[Kill3r7]

There is no hardline. Ideally you want to avoid paid to win scenarios but even then developers and publishers are free to do as they please. The market will determine what's viable.

Except games don't have to cost that much to make. That's the industry's fault not mine.

Not to mention Nintendo doesn't have microtransactions in ARMS or Splatoon, yet I'm getting plenty of free content.

Overwatch sold several times more than both those games combined. They can more then afford to give out free content.

If games had to be more expensive (they don't) then I'd rather see something like Titanfall 2's cosmetic DLC, instead of a lot box or premium currency system.

It's a business not a charity. The primary objective is to make money.

 

[Ahasverus]

In game economy for single player full prices games.

Like, what the fuck.

There is no hardline. Ideally you want to avoid paid to win scenarios but even then developers and publishers are free to do as they please. The market will determine what's viable.

Good ole "the market" that hasn't made shit ever to protect people. "The market" as a regulatory body is a pipe dream, as it assumes the market and the consumer public have the same power. That's false.

 

[plagiarize]

Consumables of any kind, including loot boxes.

Anything else it's just a question of if it's overpriced or not, and if it upsets the balance of the game.

If a game is incomplete or crap without DLC, then that's a game I'll never buy.

 

[Kthulhu]

There is no hardline. Ideally you want to avoid paid to win scenarios but even then developers and publishers are free to do as they please. The market will determine what's viable.



It's a business not a charity. The primary objective is to make money.

There's a difference between making money and making as much money as possible through illicit means like getting you customers addicted to gambling.

 

[Kill3r7]

In game economy for single player full prices games.

Like, what the fuck.

Good ole "the market" that hasn't made shit ever to protect people. "The market" as a regulatory body is a pipe dream, as it assumes the market and the consumer public have the same power. That's false.

Oh you mean people don't behave the way you want them to. That is how capitalism works. I guess a valid argument can be made that the predatory gambling mechanics should be regulated by the government, especially when dealing with minors, but who exactly is suppose to police MT outside of that aspect?

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

P2W in a Full Priced game.

This is the line for me. I don't care about skins etc but if someone has an advantage over me because they bought a gun or some sorts, fuck that shit.

Also almost all of the season passes are major rip-offs.

And that argument about games are costing more to make than before. Well yeah, movies cost way more as well, yet I don't pay 30 euro's for a movie in the cinema.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Anything gameplay related that might give people advantages

 

[Jerry]

Good: Dota 2

Bad: League of Legends

 

[Ahasverus]

Oh you mean people don't behave the way you want them to. That is how capitalism works.

Guess "the market" of cancer ridden people should price that one guy who is the sole manufacturer of their drugs and rised the price by 100000x out of the market. That's totally feasible!.

It's hard to use capitalism in your favor when you have no choice but suck it up.

 

[Kill3r7]

Guess "the market" of cancer ridden people should price that one guy who is the sole manufacturer of their drugs and rised the price by 100000x out of the market. That's totally feasible!.

It's hard to use capitalism in your favor when you have no choice but suck it up.

Hey let's compare healthcare to videogames. Government can and should regulate healthcare to assure the well being of its citizens. However, there is little reason for it to be involved in the game industry with respect to MT. Heck if anything, it should examine the working conditions at these development studios.

 

[SimonM7]

In your heart.

 

[Ahasverus]

Hey let's compare healthcare to videogames. Government can and should regulate healthcare to assure the well being of its citizens. However, there is little reason for it to be involved in the game industry with respect to MT. Heck if anything, it should examine the working conditions at these development studios.

Different symptoms of the same illness. Agreed with your last sentence though!

 

[Raw64life]

Already crossed it

A long, long time ago.

And they'll keep moving the line further and further until there's enough backlash. Then they'll move the line back a bunch, but then carefully inch the line a little further, and a little further, until they figure out exactly how much of an ass reaming consumers are willing to take. If people accept that, they'll resume moving the line further and further until there's another backlash.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Greddleok]

Except games don't have to cost that much to make. That's the industry's fault not mine.

Not to mention Nintendo doesn't have microtransactions in ARMS or Splatoon, yet I'm getting plenty of free content.

Overwatch sold several times more than both those games combined. They can more then afford to give out free content.

If games had to be more expensive (they don't) then I'd rather see something like Titanfall 2's cosmetic DLC, instead of a loot box or premium currency system.

It's funny that you mention ARMS and Splatoon, two games pretty much with the minimum amount of content. Splatoon has a tiny single player portion, then a few maps. That's what you want all your games to be like? I'd rather let someone else foot the bill with microtransactions and have games with more content.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I think the line has been crossed and it's grand theft auto online. A game that should be fun to hop in with friends and play won't let you get close to anything without loads of money, and the in game method to make money is broken so you gotta pay to get anywhere

 

[13ruce]

It already is way far past it, should onlybe cosmetics but some 60 retail games even got pay to win micros like call of duty.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Except games don't have to cost that much to make. That's the industry's fault not mine.

So we're just gonna pretend that there weren't several controversies about games or having good enough graphics? Or a push towards devs investing more. It's not just graphics, gameplay is more expensive to develop because they're a shit ton more complex.

Not to mention Nintendo doesn't have microtransactions in ARMS or Splatoon, yet I'm getting plenty of free content.

Nintendo games are hella cheap to make due to lower quality assets, less investment in massively improved rendering technology,(exceptions ofc), and

Overwatch sold several times more than both those games combined. They can more then afford to give out free content.

Did you miss all the free dlc for overwatch?

If games had to be more expensive (they don't) then I'd rather see something like Titanfall 2's cosmetic DLC, instead of a loot box or premium currency system.

Cosmetics are ideal and contrary to popular belief most MTs are based on them.

 

[Ripenen]

What do you guys think of physical goods that are purchased with a random chance to get the thing you want? Baseball card packs for instance? LEGO also has a line of random minifigure packs you can buy, and there are a lot of similar things for transformers, minions, marvel heroes, and other toy brands where you pay a couple bucks for a sealed pack and you get a little toy.

Not trying to defend loot boxes I'm actually just curious if there is a perceived difference when it's physical goods vs. digital.

 

[plagiarize]

What do you guys think of physical goods that are purchased with a random chance to get the thing you want? Baseball card packs for instance? LEGO also has a line of random minifigure packs you can buy, and there are a lot of similar things for transformers, minions, marvel heroes, and other toy brands where you pay a couple bucks for a sealed pack and you get a little toy.

Not trying to defend loot boxes I'm actually just curious if there is a perceived difference when it's physical goods vs. digital.

Personally I don't buy them. It's pretty terrible to aim stuff like that at kids if you ask me.

 

[Give War A Chance]

Anything beyond cosmetics.

 

[Trup1aya]

P2W

 

[Lady Gaia]

Some people are incredibly delusional. Y'all expect to pay $60 for a game, when games cost more than ever to make and cost less thanks to inflation than they did 15 years ago.

No delusions here. Market expansion and digital purchases are helping ensure that the developer/publisher continues to see more upside potential than ever for games. Used game sales and retail markeup are much more of a threat to the industry's financial health than curbing predatory microtransactions.

 

[hawk2025]

The line has already been crossed.

We are paying for hits on a gambling machine with no known payoff.

It's time to regulate the gambling for what it is.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Personally I think that pretty much anything that could be reasonably termed a "microtransaction" instead of "DLC" has already crossed the line. Mostly this includes purchases that are consumable, repeatable, and/or have an element of randomness, but there's a few other "know it when you see it" cases, as well.

All microtransactions are detrimental to game design, and many of them are outright gambling. They are not a business model I am willing to support.

 

[Imbarkus]

You need wallet funds or a credit card to buy microtransactions. Young children do not have access to those things unless their parents allow them access.

That didn't prevent Apple, Google, and Amazon from all paying big class action settlements for making microtransaction purchases by a minor (using his parent's card associated with the account) way too easy and opaque.

Those of you raring to post "That's me! I'm pure!": make sure you have never continued in an arcade game.

Ah, the original pain point: "Insert Coin to Continue." Although you have a good point, I will point out that the innovation also marked the debut of bullshit, cheap AI in games, designed to force you to continue to see the ending. Shao Khan leaps to mind.

Compare this to before the introduction, when there was a purity to games designed
to increase in tough-but-fair difficulty until you lost and made room for the next player. The focus was on games of skill, and making the skill curve arc upward infinitely (if possible). Only the classic arcade games allow for Billy Mitchell savant-like experts to truly achieve something at the game by being better than everyone else.

Now in online multiplayer games, where this "skill game" now exists, there's a very grey area muddy line around RNGs, consumables, cosmetics, pay-for-advantage, etc. People can't seem to agree if they make the games better or worse.

But "Insert Coin to Continue" made arcade games worse. I was there!

 

[Gazoogleheimmer]

As a side question, has anyone here never spent money on a microtransaction?

I never have, as I see them as a rip off at best to manipulation (pay to maybe get a useful item) at worst, but I've never found them necessary for me to enjoy a game

Games that are built around microtransactions tend to games I don't enjoy, so they have been easy to avoid

The issue I have with them is when games are designed to sell them to players the core design of the game is normally altered in a way that I perceive as negative

On paper cosmetic items are all good and well, but often this means the dev will slowly shit all over a games art design as they pump out more and more cosmetic items to sell

I never have and never will. I play Halo/Overwatch/Gears 4 and don't care about cosmetics or boxes or whatever. Whatever I get with in-game currency is fine. I agree with you, enjoying the game is more important to me then what my character's outfit or gun looks like.

P2W in a Full Priced game.

Examples? I've been living under a rock if there are games famous for this.

 

[kikonawa]

The part where there is money involved