Support NeoGAF

[Mandoric]

A lot of people in here writing rules that shake a finger at Street Fighter 2 or Metal Slug while gleefully forgiving whaling in $60 purchases which would make Captain Ahab cringe.

My line: noncosmetic buys in a title with a sizable purchase price, RNG purchases without a published loot table, and "P2W" that affects competitive modes which don't also have visible skill scoring. (I'm fine with getting blown out in score if I can still come in 4th with the only full combo and everyone else knows, say.)

 

[wapplew]

There shouldn't be a line, micro-transaction is what holding AAA industry together.

 

[WaterAstro]

The line moves.

A few years ago, people wouldn't put up with paying $60 for a game that also has vanity microtransactions. We use to vilify games that put unlockables behind a paywall.

Now, we're praising Overwatch for doing it.

 

[Magwik]

Putting them in a remaster of a game and using loot boxes to introduce new content thus fucking everything up

 

[NoblesseOblige]

My line is drawn at RNG micro transactions. AKA - Lootboxes. I won't even support the base game if it has them.

 

[Gator86]

I agree but will giants like blizzard ever be stopped? I don't think it will happen any time soon.

They will only stop when there is a method that produces more revenue or legislation is passed to stop it, whether that be at the state or federal level. In the latter case, the question becomes how strongly it's enforced and what are the penalities for breaking the rules. Financial institutions frequently break rules because the payoff is less than the fine. Even monetary fines in the realm of millions wouldn't be enough to dissuade someone like Blizzard from giving up that sweet, sweet whale money.

 

[NullPointer]

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 right here.

Good writeup.

Publisher's wet dreams are to get us all hooked on consumables. Thats the jackpot. Don't give them an inch on any of that, because there is no end to it.

 

[Piggus]

Having to buy keys for the loot boxes you get in CS:GO is fucking insulting and makes me want to punch Garry Newel in the face.

 

[duckroll]

LINE Disney Tsum Tsum
LINE Football League Manager
LINE Let's Get Rich

That LINE?

 

[Fancolors]

I draw the line on consumables and stuff that give competitive advantage to those who pay.

If it's purely cosmetic idc

 

[Polk]

Fuck consumables is my official line.

 

[Alphahawk]

You know for as much as everyone complains about microtransactions I've never really been that tempted. I mean maybe there were a couple cases, but it's certainly not a problem in non-mobile game. It's a far cry from the nickel and diming you'd think that there'd be, reading some of the detractors.

Loot boxes and things of that nature I find a bit problematic, not in a "I want them" way but in a looking at Reddit and seeing kids with credit cards who can't control themselves. I believe there was a thread in the Rocket League forum about a guy who unknowingly over the course of a couple months spent over a thousand dollars on keys to crates.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Microtractions are the gateway to more sinister money ripping tactics. It's not the line - it's how many are willing to cross it.

 

[Vipu]

You know for as much as everyone complains about microtransactions I've never really been that tempted. I mean maybe there were a couple cases, but it's certainly not a problem in non-mobile game. It's a far cry from the nickel and diming you'd think that there'd be, reading some of the detractors.

Loot boxes and things of that nature I find a bit problematic, not in a "I want them" way but in a looking at Reddit and seeing kids with credit cards who can't control themselves. I believe there was a thread in the Rocket League forum about a guy who unknowingly over the course of a couple months spent over a thousand dollars on keys to crates.

Just because some people cant control themselfs should not stop majority of people having things.

 

[Alphahawk]

Just because some people cant control themselfs should not stop majority of people having things.

I feel like care should be taken when it involves young people though. Not to say that these are necessarily aimed at that particular market demo, but it's something that's easily accessible to them. Like, apparently if you go to Vegas and you're under the legal age, they won't even let you on the rug where a slot machine is placed at. Meanwhile little jimmy can just use his lunch money to keep buying loot boxes.

 

[JordanN]

There was an old joke in TF2. When one of the the toy bears costs more than a real one.

I feel like that's the line. Why pay for something so inconsequential and can only be used in one game?

Of course, for Valve and other Publishers, they want to reap that kind of success.

 

[Daffy Duck]

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

Agreed about everything but expansions, they aren't micro transactions

 

[Staf]

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 for me as well. Other than that i don't mind microtransactions.

 

[duckroll]

I feel like care should be taken when it involves young people though. Not to say that these are necessarily aimed at that particular market demo, but it's something that's easily accessible to them. Like, apparently if you go to Vegas and you're under the legal age, they won't even let you on the rug where a slot machine is placed at. Meanwhile little jimmy can just use his lunch money to keep buying loot boxes.

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.

 

[NullPointer]

You know for as much as everyone complains about microtransactions I've never really been that tempted. I mean maybe there were a couple cases, but it's certainly not a problem in non-mobile game. It's a far cry from the nickel and diming you'd think that there'd be, reading some of the detractors.

Loot boxes and things of that nature I find a bit problematic, not in a "I want them" way but in a looking at Reddit and seeing kids with credit cards who can't control themselves. I believe there was a thread in the Rocket League forum about a guy who unknowingly over the course of a couple months spent over a thousand dollars on keys to crates.

I don't really mind people buying whatever the hell they want to, its how these monetization schemes drive gameplay. You get grinds, timers, and inventory management. All of those things can be enjoyable when they're designed and balanced to reward players, but there's a direct vested interest in pushing them into territory where they become designed to become an irritant that only hardcore investment in certain drip-fed gameplay modes (usually involving socialization to feed that long term investment) or direct purchases (or both) can relieve.

I'm willing to cut free-to-play games some slack on these points (though not the pay-to-win ones), but not at all in full priced games or games that require a buy-in first.

And look at GTAO, which could have been standalone but required GTA V, and its the reason we haven't seen more single player content. Its not that they can't afford to make single player expansions, but why should they when they're raking in cash hand over fist when focusing on the microtransaction based multiplayer?

This stuff affects games and our enjoyment of them, under the guise of being optional, and that's why they're nefarious.

 

[MoonFrog]

Personally, keep them out of my games. I don't like accessing content in that way. Make content that you achieve through gameplay rather than real world cash.

I include cosmetics in this. I remember playing SWTOR before and after FTP. I remember the cool secret quests and bosses you had to fight for some cosmetics, like pink crystals. I also remember after FTP when there was a new gaudy crystal every month or so and everyone was dressed up like Revan and/or in flavor of the month, bottom-of-the-barrel sexy clothes.

Perhaps in a wholly multiplayer game there's a place for them but in a game with out-of-battle play and in-game ways to get this kind of stuff...there's no place for it in my opinion. It just brings out the worst in art design and takes from main game content.

 

[C.Olimar788]

It's simple. If your game has an up-front fee to play, then it should not have microtransactions. If the game is free to play, then it can have microtransactions.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Honestly, I just see DLC and micro transactions as a symptom of how fucked up the pricing model of games are.

Games costs more to develop now than any other time in history, yet adjusted for inflation, we pay less for them now than we did in the 80s. Money had to come from somewhere, after all.

 

[Mandoric]

Honestly, I just see DLC and micro transactions as a symptom of how fucked up the pricing model of games are.

Games costs more to develop now than any other time in history, yet adjusted for inflation, we pay less for them now than we did in the 80s. Money had to come from somewhere, after all.

This is also true.

The unfortunate part is that the genie's out of the bottle and our choices are now $0 with whaling, $60 with whaling or $120 with whaling. $120 full packages are not happening, because the price is just "what the market will put up with". No whaling is not happening, because the people who refuse to pay are paying $0 extra at any price and the people who don't care think they're getting a good deal whether they pay $0 and then $100/year or $120 and then $100/year for skins, comparing to their no-microtransaction friends who are buying 5 games at $300-600 each year.

 

[Greddleok]

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.

 

[Pixels]

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.

So are loot boxes ever ok?

 

[Tenshin]

For me cosmetics items and free to play games.

 

[Mandoric]

So are loot boxes ever ok?

Make them for skins, publish drop rates, and they're A-OK. The inevitable Evangelion D.Va can just be an idiot detector, like Project Yasuo on steroids - "this texture edit will probably cost you $300" is a cost I'm willing to bear because the people rolling for it are either rich and paying my way, or have legitimate issues and at least are done after $300 rather than buying a $5 scratch ticket daily.

 

[Ichabod]

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

Sums up my feelings pretty well.

 

[Greddleok]

So are loot boxes ever ok?

I think so. As long as they're cosmetic only in multiplayer games. In single player games, do what they hell you want, pay $10 to have invincibility for all I care.

I've bought loot boxes in Overwatch once. I regretted it because it's random, and essentially just gambling. Some people don't mind that, I think it's dumb.

I bought digital goods for Titanfall 2, because I love the game and don't mind supporting the devs. Not loot boxes though, which makes it considerably more palatable.

 

[Rizific]

Locking an entire game mode behind a subscription pay wall.

 

[Falk]

Interesting article, I had missed that development, thanks for that. There's precedent in the U.S. as well, in the 90's when Senate attention began to focus on the video game industry because of increased fidelity allowing games like Mortal Kombat and Night Trap to be paraded as attention-grabbing examples of "depravity."

The voluntary institution of the ESRB and its rating system arguably staved off official regulation. Still so ironic to me that senator Leland Yee who pushed the issue to the Supreme Court and actually finally secured first amendment rights for the medium turned out to be involved in illegal arms dealing.

America!

Heh, to follow up on that, 'goodwill decision' by big players or not it was outright made illegal a couple of weeks later.

Very topically w.r.t our line of discussion, in comparison I don't believe showing exact rates is required by law as much as it is that kind of self-regulatory practice, but precedent shows that Japanese lawmakers are ready to step in if something feels amiss.

Also, if you're interested in this kind of stuff, you should read up on the much more recent Cygames debacle last year that prompted their largest money-maker to introduce a cap of sorts to spending to curb RNG, a practice which is being aped by many other games recently as it appears to increase value for users and thus reduce churn.

(To pedantically correct that article, Anchira's rate wasn't 3%->6%, that's the rate of SSR units as a whole)

 

[Vinnk]

The only DLC I have ever bought was the new course packs for Mario Kart 8 (and I regret it now as I have the Switch version). But that was a pretty meaty expansion for a reasonable price.

I don't plan to buy any other DLC unless it is at the same level as that. Not sold on the Zelda DLC yet.

 

[Radec]

I'm fine with microtransactions that affects cosmetics only with no gain in advantage.

 

[Stilton Disco]

For me, it's when they're in anything other than 'free to play' games.

Fuck microtransactions basically. It and the whole 'Games as a Service' model that it spawned have only made games worse.

 

[Mandoric]

Heh, to follow up on that, 'goodwill decision' by big players or not it was outright made illegal a couple of weeks later.

Very topically w.r.t our line of discussion, in comparison I don't believe showing exact rates is required by law as much as it is that kind of self-regulatory practice, but precedent shows that Japanese lawmakers are ready to step in if something feels amiss.

Also, if you're interested in this kind of stuff, you should read up on the much more recent Cygames debacle last year that prompted their largest money-maker to introduce a cap of sorts to spending to curb RNG, a practice which is being aped by many other games recently as it appears to increase value for users and thus reduce churn.

(To pedantically correct that article, Anchira's rate wasn't 3%->6%, that's the rate of SSR units as a whole)

Cygames is also its own sui generis mess, which we can discuss in western contexts when we have the DotA American Express with exclusive playable champion. (There WAS a League of Legends-branded debit Amex, but that was a rather less vicious attempt that just gave its cash back in cash shop points instead.)

 

[Retrozocker]

The NBA 2k Franchise.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

So are loot boxes ever ok?

In a f2p game... maybe.

I still wouldn't buy any, but I would at least give the game a shot.

 

[Falk]

Cygames is also its own sui generis mess, which we can discuss in western contexts when we have the DotA American Express with exclusive playable champion. (There WAS a League of Legends-branded debit Amex, but that was a rather less vicious attempt that just gave its cash back in cash shop points instead.)

Zoi from a credit card is old news, when you can also now get Medusa (character, not summon) by subscribing to a certain mobile phone service only available in Japan.

I think the DotA analogy is a little apples and oranges, though, since it's generally understood that you're supposed to have all heroes from the start, as opposed to an RNGfest like many gacha games, where an out-of-game promotion is just another layer on top of that. The amount of outrage for the former would be justifiably a lot higher.

 

[NullPointer]

So are loot boxes ever ok?

Titanfall 2 is the best consumer-friendly model here. Buy the cosmetics you want instead of gambling on a chance.

 

[Freddo]

Already crossed it

Yep, still haven't bought the latest Deus Ex, and I bought all the previous games at launch, even Invisible War.

 

[Thoraxes]

For me, it's basically just existing. I can count the number of microtransactions i've bought out of interest on one hand, and that number is 4, with 2 of those being the Trails of Cold Steel I+II DLC packs because I wanted to support the franchise (please buy the Trails games people) and didn't actually care about the costumes.

I like goods with permanence, so whenever I see digital stuff up for sale, all I can think about is how expendable it is, and how I can just watch a free internet video of it to enjoy what the content is.

I'm not against other people wanting to enjoy being nickel and dimed, since they help keep games getting more content. It's just not for me.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Titanfall 2 is the best consumer-friendly model here. Buy the cosmetics you want instead of gambling on a chance.

I like Warframe's model which is allow players buy and trade platinum that can be exchanged for cosmetics. That way you can even acquire it without ever spending a dollar if you farm certain items to sell other players.

 

[carlsojo]

It's down to everyone's personal tastes. Every thing everyone has posted in here thus far is okay with some people and okay enough for it to be profitable.

 

[truestatic]

When microtransactions have detrimental effects on game design.

 

[Mandoric]

Zoi from a credit card is old news, when you can also now get Medusa (character, not summon) by subscribing to a certain mobile phone service only available in Japan.

I think the DotA analogy is a little apples and oranges, though, since it's generally understood that you're supposed to have all heroes from the start, as opposed to an RNGfest like many gacha games, where an out-of-game promotion is just another layer on top of that. The amount of outrage for the former would be justifiably a lot higher.

I started conceptualizing it as an exclusive League champ, which ISN'T a given (though the game design tends toward Shotoclones and you're typically faced with "earning" Ryu and then maybe buying Ken, Sakura, and Dan.) But yeah.

 

[fermcr]

There is no line to cross. Simply don't purchase them.

 

[*Splinter]

Whatever you feel comfortable paying. That's going to be different for every person and is going to be completely different from game to game.

The only real answer

For me it's pay to win mechanics, anything that gives even the smallest advantage to those willing to pay extra. Especially if that means ongoing costs (loot boxes, premium consumables/ammo, etc.)

Then again, Black Ops 3 has a little bit of this (strong weapons locked behind loot boxes with extremely low odds), and I still play that.

 

[Coxy100]

The line was drawn when they began to exist.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

For me, it's when they're in anything other than 'free to play' games.

Fuck microtransactions basically. It and the whole 'Games as a Service' model that it spawned have only made games worse.

Speak for yourself, man. For Honor Season 2 has been treating me right.