If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
When you have governments looking into microtransactions, there is a problem. It's kind of like gambling and Battlefront brought these issues to a head. I for one hate microtransactions, but enjoy story driven DLC. Provided it's not a complete rip off and I'm getting hours of gameplay for my money, I will consider buying.
I don't really care.
DLCs that add something like an expansion is great if priced appropriately but rarely are.
Micro transactions on the other hand are cancerous to gaming as a whole, when publishers make a game more of a slog just to sell micro transactions then that is a major problem.
Micro transactions in AAA games are designed to remove content and sell it back to you.
DLC could have been the best thing ever for video games. New content for gamers without having to wait for a sequel, regular income for publishers/devs. Unfortunately, some in the industry chose the Dark Side and the exploitational route. I don't have a problem with microtransactions, in theory at least, but the temptation to 'adjust' your own game to tempt people to buy MTs is just too great for some in the industry. I take it on a case by case basis, of course, but the presence of MTs always makes me wary of pre-ordering games.
Microtransactions are also a perfect way for developers to purposely put major inconveniences in the game and then sell you a way to bypass those inconveniences.
For example, in some games when you enchant your gear there is a chance for it to fail and completely destroy your gear that you've spent months grinding for. Or, you can buy a special material from the cash shop which guarantees 100% chance for your enchant to succeed, and it's only $30 for each gear slot! $$$$$$$$$$$$$
It seems like most companies do it properly. Maybe it's different on PC, but on consoles I don't see a lot of games I play have MTXs that create a P2W environment. I saw people complaining about AC Odyssey, but unless it drastically changed from Origins, I don't see the problem. I never felt my progression was stifled and there were plenty of great weapons and armor available without paying a penny. Even with Destiny 2 and that whole XP thing, I never felt shorted because the reward for leveling up that bar after your cap was so irrelevant I never cared - I actually found it annoying because it was just more useless crap for me to dismantle whenever I filled it up.
I'm in the "If done right they're alright" boat here. Personally I like story DLC, it's a great way to get me back into a game I may have finished and moved on from and continue on with the story. When it comes to season passes I'll usually pass on them unless they announce just how much DLC will be getting released and that it's guaranteed a release or I'll wait until all of the DLC is released before purchasing the pass.
The only microtransactions I don't have an issue with are purely cosmetic items. Things like new outfits, hairstyles, etc added post release are perfectly fine in my book. If they spent extra time and resources to make additional content after the game has released then I think they're perfectly within their right to expect compensation for it. Any other transactions that either effect how you play the game, give you an advantage over another player (multiplayer), or boost you should be removed. If it's a singleplayer game then they should just have an option to boost you for free (like NG+ and make you have to earn it). If it's mulitplayer then there should never be any kind of RMT that allows you to boost.
What if it's new weapons, but they are of the same-class and don't offer any advantages over things already in the game that maybe you just haven't acquired yet?
If all it does is just change the look then I don't see a problem with it. If it happens to have the same stats as a weapon that unlocks at say level 50/50 but you're only level 1 then I would consider it an advantage but if they require you to be at a certain level to use it then I feel it would solve that problem.
I feel as if this has already been brought up, but seeing as i'm momentarily way too lazy to read all the comments made, here I go: DLC's done properly is a non issue. Take one of my personal favourite games of the "modern era": Witcher 3, where they released Heart of stone for a measly $9.99 usd and Blood and wine for $19.99 usd. Where the cheaper one is an amazing quest line and the more "pricey" one is an entire new map with a f**k-ton of content. I didn't hear anyone complain about DLC's or coughing up extra money to the developer there, why? Well because you got your moneys worth and then some.
Whereas the majority of other $60 usd AAA titels often release some crappy content for a far too high price. That's when I personaly start to have an problem with the whole DLC "issue".
Microtransactions isn't going away, no matter what we think or want they are here to stay. I wish they would keep it to a cosmetic only, non intrusive, non gambling (what you see is what you get) mechanic with a neat little store that doesn't market itself in every single pause menu. And I would love to have games that aren't deliberately made grindier just to make you go and buy whatever it is you're working towards, be that a new pice of item or title or whatever. But that is probably just wishful thinking..
Mtxs aren't going anywhere, that's for sure. I would be on the side, for now, that most games implement them fairly in relation to the KIND of game they are (premium or F2P, for example). I know people like to complain about their existence, but I haven't seen anything too crazy yet. I know some people felt dismayed by grinding... but I dunno, I played games like that and I never felt the difference. It just took what it took - I eventually beat the games.
Comment