DLC and microtransactions are ok. Change my mind.

[]

Microtransactions shouldn't be in paid games though

[Ryan]

Why? Especially if it adds more content. You believe you're entitled to new stuff even though it wasn't part of the original package? Shouldn't the creators get paid for extending/refreshing the game?

[baboon]

I would never spend (waste) money on microtransactions. I don't mind cosmetic items for multiplayer games if they are entirely optional. If people want to buy them, that's the free market in action and as long as kids aren't buying them using their parent's credit cards without their permission, it's totally fine.

Microtransactions in single player games are shady as hell and I hope this is something that dies a death quickly. I purposely waited until the miscrotransactions had been ripped out of Shadow of War before buying it, and even made sure I bought the game second hand in protest that they were there to begin with. I can only imagine how much of a tedious and frustrating grind the end was before the microtransactions were removed.

DLC, when done properly is great. Witcher 3 being the prime example, but I thought Dragon Age Inquisition had excellent DLC. To be fair, Trespasser was the proper ending of the game, so it was pretty shady it was an add-on, but I got the GOTY edition and it was a great package. You can get it for a few UK pounds on PS store, great buy in my opinion.

Skyrim's DLC was fantastic. I would go as far as to suggest that the DLC is much stronger from a writing point of view as (I am guessing) the team could focus on the story instead of world building and there were some really cool ideas in there. Indeed, there are many games where it kind of seems a shame that there isn't more DLC for the engine/world they spent so long and worked so hard to create.

If CD Project Red announced a new Witcher 3 DLC I would buy it immediately.

I really thought I would hate Metal Gear Solid 5: Phantom Pain but my brother gave me his copy and it is one of my favorite games of all time. Again, if Konami brought out a DLC that gave you another 25 - 50 missions, maybe playing as your soldiers instead of Big Boss, I would buy that immediately too. The non-playable Stop The Coup d'Etat sounded like a cool mission!

But of course, greedy Konami just decided to do a pants online base building game with microtransactions, to no-one's surprise.

[Yoshi]

I won't change your mind, because I largely agree. If I enjoy a game, I will buy additional content for said game. That seems like common sense. I will also buy cosmetic items for games I want to support or that I feel like I got more than I paid out of them. Examples of these would be Fortnite, which obviously I paid nothing to play but bought a skin and a battle pass, and (pre-Rocket Pass) Rocket League. I've since soured on the latter, because I feel like paying for the game plus the rocket pass plus crates plus skins is a bridge too far.

[hellblazerx86]

I think microtransactions are fine as long as they dont make it a requirement to beat the game or play at a higher level(i.e. unlocking more powerful characters or weapons, real money required, etc) DLC is a problem to me when you do things like what Bungie does with Destiny or the "free DLC" you get for pre-orders. Everything is already on the disc and all you do by buying the dlc is get the key to unlock it. Also some DLC is just not worth it for the price tag.

[baboon]

Also some DLC is just not worth it for the price tag.

Good point. I really want the DLC for Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2, but to buy it all would currently cost about the same as a brand new game. But that's EA for you.

[Heinzt]

What do you guys think about gacha games microtransactions?

[Kiran04]

DLC and microtransactions both lead to developer laziness. Don't bother releasing a full game. Release half a game for full price, then make people pay for the rest of the game through DLC, and microtransactions have always been the most aggressively pursued form of developer corruption in existence. Maybe back in the days before the AAA companies took over the industry there was a "right way" to do DLC and microtransactions, but not anymore. The industry standard for both is absolutely disgusting and it's not going to change without a radical shake up. Dump both completely.

[AilingForAle]

First, the industry isn't stagnant. Its growing. More people have access to video games around the world than ever before, and companies are cutting their costs on the development process (automation and asset reuse), on their distribution (digital downloads), and killing the aftermarket (activation codes and digital downloads).

Second, if the industry were stagnant, it's because it deserves to be. If the games were worth buying people would do so. Don't bail out corporations. Buy DLC because what you are getting in return is worth it. Vote with your money. If a company fucks up, don't buy their shit until they correct course, because at the end of the day that's the only thing a corporation cares about.

I agree and also agree with the poster who said once this type of things is implemented into the development process, the process changes to accommodate it as well. It kind of taints the game in some sense. There are ways to do it so that they only use it for cosmetics or the adding of content actually made for the lengthening of the game after initial release, not when the content is locked on the disc you bought. (Hi Capcom!)

The enticement factor is something that needs to be handled, but that's more on a cultural level. People should know what they are getting into and how the brain works to know that most businesses (especially mobile) create dopamine hit effects so that it essentially pulls you in and that addictive behavior kicks in. We have to be accountable to ourselves and can't blame the company for us sliding that credit card. Self control is tough, but is a great tool to have in your belt.

[Jokerthefoolio]

I mean DLC and microtransactions are only scummy if the devs and publisher are

[Slvrbuu]

I don't mind DLC. However I would prefer that it be productive DLC. Take Paradox Development for example. They happen to be the most notable, to me, for DLC. Paradox is quite renown for their games being incredibly easy to mod, and overhaul. Games like Crusader Kings 2 have mods which put you in the world of Game of Thrones, or even Elder Scrolls, while games like Europa Universalis 4 can put you back in time to the ancient era of Alexander the Great, or Focus itself entirely on Japan, or Turkey, or just deeply expand the base game like MEIOU and Taxes. Not only are mods possible, but they are heavily supported by Paradox. You've got a mod manager built into their newer launchers, support for Steam Workshop, you've also got sections on their forums for mods, they patch in new scripting abilities specifically for modders.

With all that in mind, what I would consider a productive DLC for Paradox are the ones which add new mechanics, and features to the game that are otherwise incredibly hard, or impossible to add via mods in a useful way. What I don't consider a Productive DLC are the DLC which are heavily focused on Events, and narrow spots on the map. Sure it makes the base game more expansive, but these are all things that have been done by mods. So adding in one or two minor features like the empire of China doesn't really feel like a productive DLC. People were already manipulating the HRE or papacy to do that. So the price often feels like more than you'd want to pay, because it doesn't feel like it adds much.

Perhaps this is a bad way of looking at it, but it feels like Paradox relies on mods to maintain interest in their games, and thus be able to sell more DLC. So DLC which does not also support mods, does not feel like a Productive DLC. Basically, know your game, and what keeps it alive, and support it. Support your community, and then the DLC feels worthwhile.

[Gemini73]

Microtransactions and DLC in of themselves aren't the problem, the problem stems from the aggressive (and greedy) way that many developers/publishers, particularly from the AAA side of the industry, now implement them.

[Saskia]

DLC and microtransactions are ok. Change my mind.

How about this one for The Sims 4. Keep in mind most of these DLC packs contain extremely minimal elements which could have easily been included in the base game.

$50 The Sims 4

DLC:

$30 Outdoor Retreat
$50 Get to Work
$15 Luxury Party Stuff
$15 Perfect Patio Stuff
$30 Spa Day
$15 Cool Kitchen Stuff
$15 Spooky Stuff
$50 Get Together
$15 Movie Hangout Stuff
$15 Romantic Garden Stuff
$30 Dine Out
$15 Kids Room Stuff
$15 Backyard Stuff
$50 City Living
$15 Vintage Glamour Stuff
$30 Vampires
$15 Bowling Night Stuff
$30 Parenthood
$15 Fitness Stuff
$15 Toddler Stuff
$50 Cats and Dogs
$30 Jungle Adventure
$15 Laundry Day Stuff
$15 My first Pet
$50 Seasons
$50 Get Famous

Total cost: $740 <--WTF!!!

[Ryan]

I agree with Slvrbuu -- you're making an example of something that has been out for years and is actually a positive representation of continued support. Now, if all that was released in a single year, maybe there is some concern. I would also wager most people are probably not going to buy most of those at a time so they won't be spending anywhere near the $740.Those are pricey too, I agree -- I wouldn't bite. :P

[Saskia]

I don't care how long the game has been out, there is no justification for having to spend $740 to get all the content for a SINGLE game, that's just insane. A good portion of this should have been reduced substantially already, but that would be expecting too much from EA. This a good reason why people pirate games.

[DGCae]

I don't think this is really a DLC issue more so than an EA being greedy issue though. They have done a good job at continuing support for their game and giving those who enjoy it something to keep playing with, they just went about it in a money-hungry way. It'd honestly be an amazing example of DLC if they knocked off about 50-60% but EA is gonna EA, which is why I still have yet to purchase a single Sims 4 DLC pack.

[TheQuarianGuy]

Think of it this way.

You buy a burger menu for 60$, they say if you want pickles, it's 2$ a piece. Fries are Expansion Packs that cost as half as much the burger did.

You want chicken nuggets? Sorry those are Pre-Order bonuses, but if you wait a week you can upgrade your version of the game to "Digital Deluxe" which will cost 15$.

Coke is DLC worth 10$ and each piece of Ice cube is a Microtransaction fee of 2$.

To show you that they care and that you are getting your money's worth they give you 2 ketchup packets for your fries -But only if you bought them before- after you had eaten your food a month ago.

Then you remember the whole menu would cost 40$, fries and coke would come along with the menu.

6 piece of chicken nugget along with apple pie and salad would be considered an expansion pack that cost $15

Their reason for these new practices is that they cannot stay a float without these microtransactions and DLCs yet their profits dwarf their days of old.

[Ryan]

I already go to burger places that charge $10 for the burger, $6 for the fries and $3 for the drink though. They also charge for cheese, depending on the burger. I think people need a new rebuttal lol.

[Cheeky]

I don't think microtransactions or DLC is bad. The problem I find is when a game developer releases a game with the DLC already embedded in the game just to wait 3 months to charge 20$ to access this "new" content. Also when it comes to MTX I believe it shouldn't enhance gameplay. I prefer cosmetic MTX, but I come from a history of playing TF2 and Dota 2.

[Matias]

i would say fortnite is a good example of microtransactions done right, It's free to play and only cosmetics. For a 60$ game you just end up thinking did the content get cut out of the original package just so they can sell it to you for extra cost. DLC should be extra content but there has been way too many times where you have to buy the DLC just to get the whole game. And EA with the sims series has showed us how business works, what used to be part of the base game is now DLC. So they are not bad ideas but implementation is usually really greedy and predatory.

[Ryan]

Someone was pointing out earlier -- with Sims that was support over the past 4-5 years. It wasn't the game releasing with $700 worth of add-on. I've never bought DLC that "completed" (with exception to some fighting games I suppose that had a ultimate pack with all the characters) a game, but that could just be my experience. I've never bought a game with known DLC where I was unable to start and finish the game without buying the DLC. I would say most of the time the DLC doesn't add much, of course there are exceptions though. I can't stand the F2P model. They feel like games where you have to dive in at the ground level with everyone else and grow with the game, otherwise you will jump in so behind that you are almost forced to pay for things to "catch up" with everyone else.

[Matias]

My point was that what u used to get as a part of sims2 basegame would be dlc for sims3 and what used to be a part of sims3 basegame would be dlc for sims4, Or what used to be a single dlc pack for a previous title would be two different dlcs for newer title