DLC and microtransactions are ok. Change my mind.

[Ryan]

This will be fun. Please don't get too serious about it. I know it's a sensitive topic for some people.

I feel Microtransactions are fine in games. As long as they are not implemented in a way that impacts one's ability to beat a game beginning to end, I don't see an issue with them. It's a fair way for developers and publishers to fund a rather stagnant industry while still giving us the games. I know it's a hard concept for us "oldies" (I'm 34) to sometimes accept, but it's really not a problem when handled correctly. And yes, I would argue there are companies, even amongst the hated ones, that handle it properly. For example, Ubisoft's handling of them in AC Origins (I haven't played the latest, so maybe it's changed). I beat the game from beginning to end without ever buying any kind of boosts. I never felt shorted, I never felt the game progression was artificially stymied in favor of boosters, etc. The store was pretty out-of-sight. I think that is a fair way to implement the feature.

I feel DLC, in general, is acceptable. Most DLC is garbage like a few extra side quests or missions thrown into the open-world, but it's all optional. There are honest packs out there though that legitimately lengthen the time with the game. I don't see how that's a bad thing getting more time with something you enjoy with fresh content. I would rather have the option to pay $90 and extend my game than to be forced to always pay $90 regardless of getting DLC or not. I think it is a fair way to keep games at $60 while giving developers/publishers more streams of increased revenue to offset the difference in stagnant prices and rocketing overhead. After all, I quite clearly remember with just about every platform generation came an increase in MSRP on games. We are now heading into a third generation, possibly, without a base-rate increase since the last generation when games hit $60 MSRP on average. That's pretty good.

I also believe that nobody is entitled to the labor of others. When I purchased the game, I went into a contract with the creators agreeing to pay X amount of dollars for what it shipped as. Anything they do afterwards is outside that original contract and I should have to pay for that extra stuff if I want it. Unless of course, they want to give it away - then that's on them.

I'm not denying there aren't predatory practices out there, primarily in mobile and F2P. I'm only looking at premium, $60 games.

Change my mind.

[MrLacksOriginality]

... not an argument you can really give a counter point to without being insane...

[Ryan]

... not an argument you can really give a counter point to without being insane...

Maybe it's good exercise for the community. So easy to fly off the handles with emotions instead of using some think-juice.

[Linko64]

For me, actual content post-release content DLC needs to be pretty strong before I'll consider purchasing it. The idea of DLC was a good concept that i feel the industry kinda bent in order to make more money out of it. As for boosts, early unlocks and all that jazz hmmmm. I feel that while they don't affect my gameplay directly, they tend to have an influence of the flow of the game often creating a grind of sorts. Overwatch's lootboxes, Rainbow Six's alpha packs, FIFA's player card packs. Not impossible to get via playing, but quite clearly made so much more accessible by a tap of a credit card. There's a level of seduction to it as well, with most of those games offering time-limited unlockables.

I don't like DLC in general, but do feel the concept can be used for a better experience by truly adding to games. It's just a shame that it seems to happen less and less!

[Eriixas]

First things first. Term "DLC" has no strict meaning attached to it. The way I interpret "DLC" is that DLC is free content that can be downloaded if player wishes so. However, more often than not, DLCs are nothing more than microtransactions with a fancy title (Horse Armour DLC for Oblivion is a notorious example). This brings me to the second point. Word "microtransaction" to me is nothing more than some unique armour or anything of the sort tho I'd like to distance DLCs (free ones) as "DLCs" and paid DLCs as "microtransactions". Well, the third term I'd like to clarify (how I, personally, interpret) is "expansion pack" and it is something with a significant amount of content. With these three terms cleared out, I can freely explain how I see them.

Microtransactions have no place in singleplayer games or mode, if the game has both SP and MP. Nobody but the player will see these fancy armours, besides, modders can do better than that and they do not charge for their mods. EXP boosts are even worse. Why would a singleplayer game have EXP boost in the first place? Easy mode is a thing in most games for players who have little to no time, play solely for story or are simply inept at playing on higher difficulties. These two are "great" examples, so to speak, that these two methods are nothing more than just low effort attempt for extra money. DLCs are a different story and unfortunately they are extremely rare. Only one title comes in mind right now - "Witcher 3": you can download armours and a few quests, but only if you wish to do so. The same title brings me to the expansion packs. Expansion packs in this game do bring new areas, story and other content, which makes other expansion packs with similar prices pale in comparison. Now, I do not expect all games to have as much content in their expansion packs, but it would be ideal that the packs wouldn't feel lackluster, at the very least.

Okay, all this debate of microtransactions, DLCs and expansion packs becomes much more difficult in multiplayer. Map packs in games, such as Call of Duty and Battlefield where they are sold separately, only segregate playerbase and therefore I am against such practices in games. Now, skins, whether they are character or weapons, I'd always prefer they'd be available via gameplay and not real money. I believe that how you look in a multiplayer game is important and the "it is just cosmetics" doesn't excuse extreme prices on simple reskins, but, if the said skins are unlockable by reaching certain level or are acquired by performing certain feat while they can be unlocked by buying them with real currency for those impatient players, I don't see why not, as long as the difference between both ways is minimal (the price is appropriate to difficulty of acquiring via in-game methods). But should multiplayer games have paid expansion packs? I do think that it depends on game and the content of the packs themselves. Like I mentioned earlier, map packs hidden behind paywall may segregate playerbase and developers should try and keep their playerbase under one roof without having "DELUXE club" of players and the "free" ones (even tho the game may cost 60 €/$/£).

It's not everything what I do believe about DLCs and all the other stuff, but that's what I had on my mind right now.

[ad_victoriam]

I agree, microtransactions are terrific. The more the industry uses and abuses them, the faster gamers get angered at their existence, and the faster the industry accelerates towards its own demise in the form of a modern crash :P

[Ryan]

Is that really what you want though? Then you would actually have to pay attention to that significant other.

[ad_victoriam]

Honestly at this point I can't see the industry, at least in the AAA segment, being salvageable, irregardless of microtransactions. It's just another irritant to add to the toxic mix. It's unfortunate that should a crash happen AAA is probably going to be the only part that could actually survive, but I can dream of a perfect world where they implode and indies inherit the earth.

As for myself, my Steam backlog is big enough that I'm good to at least the 2070s, especially the way I play games.

[etheras]

I agree with you. As a game developer, I know how expensive it is to make games and extend the content. Often times, to make the game you planned, it needs a price point of about $80 per unit. But that means you alienate all of the younger or less wealthy gamers. So it makes sense to have a 2-tier model. A "basic" and "advanced". Or even a tailored model by allowing folks to buy the content that they want.

The alternative is to have everybody own a stripped-down version of the game that does not match the original vision. OR to simply say that poorer gamers can't play. Neither of-which is fair, IMHO.

I think that multi-tier including Day-1-DLC is fine.

Where I think it gets abusive is when DLC is not packaged. I've seen some companies offer no "season pass" or "package" deals, and charging like $1.99 for each additional weapon or armor. When you add it up, the game costs like $200 if you want the "complete experience". _That_ is where it gets abusive, IMHO. Because then you're clearly not funding the content, its a cash grab pure-and-simple.

One other mode that bugs me is DLC but still has to be unlocked, like in PayDay2. You buy guns and you still need to get card drops to use them. WTF is that.

[Ryan]

What about content that was created later, or on a "as they go" model? Isn't that a fair transaction if it's priced reasonably? Do you think that skins, for example, should only be sold in a pack - or are single released skins (as they are made) ok? Of course I can see how making a package makes sense, but that kind of comes down to old marketing tactics. You sell things separately at a higher price, package them as a collection/bundle with a slight discount. The package/bundle becomes more appealing.

[etheras]

Ryan I won't say that there's something _wrong_ with "as they go" DLC - but I don't like it personally.

Perhaps I'd still buy if they did "roll up" packages every so-often. That way, superfans who want the new 10 items can spend $1.99 each for immediate access. But those who are okay with waiting, get a discount.

It just bugs me, as a full completionist, to look at a game, want the full experience, the game costs $60. But if you add all DLC its like $250. Unfortunately I can't remember the specific cases of this. Payday2 did something like that, but it appears as though they've rolled-up all their DLC now into the base game. Warhamer Total War did the same. Today, the combined DLC costs more than the base game and there's no season pass to get all of them.

The most egregious that I've seen is... there was some model train simulator, where the combined price of all DLC was like $800. For something that niche, maybe its not a dealbreaker? Maybe players are expected to buy just 1 or 2 trains? But I don't know. Unfortunately I don't remember its name either.

[Indigetes]

If you are looking for an example, The Sims 3(2009) is over 500$ right now if you buy all dlc.

[Hobbes]

Challenge accepted!

I feel Microtransactions are fine in games. As long as they are not implemented in a way that impacts one's ability to beat a game beginning to end, I don't see an issue with them. It's a fair way for developers and publishers to fund a rather stagnant industry while still giving us the games. I know it's a hard concept for us "oldies" (I'm 34) to sometimes accept, but it's really not a problem when handled correctly. And yes, I would argue there are companies, even amongst the hated ones, that handle it properly. For example, Ubisoft's handling of them in AC Origins (I haven't played the latest, so maybe it's changed). I beat the game from beginning to end without ever buying any kind of boosts. I never felt shorted, I never felt the game progression was artificially stymied in favor of boosters, etc. The store was pretty out-of-sight. I think that is a fair way to implement the feature.

The fundamental mistake is in believing that there's an acceptable way to implement micro-transactions *at all*. There isn't. The moment you place RMT on the table at a design level the game has to adjust to accommodate for the existence of RMTs. The latest AC is a good case in point, they sell a not so micro pack which boosts XP and currency gain by 50%, this gain allows you to focus on the core storyline, if you do not -buy- this boost, you're going to have to do significantly more XP grinding (more side quests) in order to keep up with the level requirements as you move through the world. Now you might counter that cosmetics are an acceptable way to implement RMT, but the problem there is that it preys upon the desire of people to feel special. It preys upon ego, and the want to feel a little bit higher in the world even if only in a video-game, these "exclusive" skins and extras were often gated behind achievements, and that encouraged players to fully explore and master the games, more often than not now the requirement is money.

I feel DLC, in general, is acceptable. Most DLC is garbage like a few extra side quests or missions thrown into the open-world, but it's all optional. There are honest packs out there though that legitimately lengthen the time with the game. I don't see how that's a bad thing getting more time with something you enjoy with fresh content. I would rather have the option to pay $90 and extend my game than to be forced to always pay $90 regardless of getting DLC or not. I think it is a fair way to keep games at $60 while giving developers/publishers more streams of increased revenue to offset the difference in stagnant prices and rocketing overhead. After all, I quite clearly remember with just about every platform generation came an increase in MSRP on games. We are now heading into a third generation, possibly, without a base-rate increase since the last generation when games hit $60 MSRP on average. That's pretty good.

The argument "It's optional" has been thoroughly annihilated so I'm not going to retread ground on that one. However, I will delve into the logistics of the price point, because that gets interesting as you mention the concept of DLC being separate and prices being constant. The 60 dollar MSRP no longer gets you the full experience, these days that gets you the entry level "shell" experience. The full experience when you factor in expansions or the inevitable season pass or additional content packs and so on and so forth is usually double that figure. The reality is that for the "full" experience these days the average cost of a game is closer to $120, and not $60, we just see $60 as the up front cost of entry and the rest is backloaded in such a way that we shrug and accept the cost as a necessary evil. It would be more acceptable to charge $90 and get the full experience rather than get nickle and dimed as we are right now.

I also believe that nobody is entitled to the labor of others. When I purchased the game, I went into a contract with the creators agreeing to pay X amount of dollars for what it shipped as. Anything they do afterwards is outside that original contract and I should have to pay for that extra stuff if I want it. Unless of course, they want to give it away - then that's on them.

I'm not denying there aren't predatory practices out there, primarily in mobile and F2P. I'm only looking at premium, $60 games.

Change my mind.

On this I agree however on the same token I believe that consumers should be entitled to games which are not glorified beta tests you pay $60 (fallout 76, no hiding at the back) nor should Consumers be tricked about the actual cost of the full experience (Ubisoft are masters of this particular practice). Nor should consumers be used as guinea pigs to test out new, fun methods of monetisation (Remember Mankind Divided and "Consumable DLC"?). Just because people have short memories on this does not mean games companies should be given a pass for their consistently bad practices.

What would be better is to pay 90 bucks and -get what you pay for-.

[Ryan]

Of course there is an acceptable way. That's whatever way they feel is best for their business model. Let's be real -- if the industry was left to the vices of the average consumer offended by these transactions, there would be no industry because everything would be given away and driven into bankruptcy.

[The Ferg 94]

I don't like having microtransactions in any game which you pay full price for, but I can sort of forget about them if they're not essential at all. The Forza Horizon games (pre-FH4 when they took them out) did this pretty well, I thought. I never felt like I had to buy any Tokens (the paid currency). But when games are deliberately rigged to force a purchase or multiple purchases in order to progress anywhere, regardless of whether it's cosmetic-only or otherwise, that's when I have an issue. And don't get me started on loot boxes.

As for DLC, I'm fine with that on two conditions. 1, it's not ripped out of the game to sell later and 2, it has enough content to justify the price.

[Ryan]

How much is actually "ripped out of the game"? That's a common argument I see people make with zero evidence of such practice. It's often an assumption, at best. I can't think of any game I've ever purchased that I was unable to to finish from beginning to end without a transaction. That is a complete a game, so what was removed and what is the evidence of such actions?

[The Ferg 94]

I know of at least one game, Dynasty Warriors 9, where characters' signature weapons were taken out to sell back to the player as DLC. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of games with Season Passes have content that is taken out to sell later too.

[fenrif]

The industry is stagnant because developers and publishers are focused on cash over innovation and creativity. DLC and microtransactions are not the cure for this, they are the symptom.

Microtransactions are things cut out of games to be sold seperatly. They have filled the role of cheat codes in most cases. Disgusting.

DLC is fine as long as it is done in the tradition of expansion packs of old. But 80% of DLC is just cheaply made tat to eke more cash out of the captured audience.

Lastly I would point out that the only reason people can even begin to argue that these things are acceptable is because over the past 2 decades or so, people have rightly crapped all over the idea every time it reared it's head. This isn't a case of devs and publishers trying to make ends meet. It's a case of this is what they are allowed to get away with, because it's the least detestable version they have tried. Once you start accepting this stuff they will try again with the horse armour and pay2win stuff of old. For example, look at Valves new card game. It's nothing but microtransactions. A buy to pay to play game.

I don't even really get behind the argument that game devopment costs too much, so these things are needed. Today One has been making Dwarf Fortress for over a decade, and it's been free (as in beer) since day 1. And it's the greatest game mankind has ever seen. Games don't cost that much to make. Graphics and marketing do. And they are possibly the two least important aspects of a game.

[MrLacksOriginality]

Its seems like no one is addressing the OP. He is strictly talking about cosmetic microtransations as being okay.

[The Ferg 94]

I don't even really get behind the argument that game devopment costs too much, so these things are needed. Today One has been making Dwarf Fortress for over a decade, and it's been free (as in beer) since day 1. And it's the greatest game mankind has ever seen. Games don't cost that much to make. Graphics and marketing do. And they are possibly the two least important aspects of a game.

I'd think marketing is the main reason why development costs are so high. It's also why I don't accept that argument in defense of microtransactions. If they're so high then manage your budget better. Don't just expect gamers to accept shady practices.

Its seems like no one is addressing the OP. He is strictly talking about cosmetic microtransations as being okay.

I don't agree with that either, largely for the same reasons why I hate pay-to-win. Most of the time, progression is rigged to force you to pay up.

[Randall_Clark]

DLC is a pretty broad term that many publishers misuse. I consider DLC something like Fallout New Vegas ones, they expand the main game plot, answer some questions or tell some separate story, in such cases is usually that developers have some ideas, but implementing them would shift the release and they are not sure what the content should look like. Also these kind of DLC have enough content for their price tag.
Now the real offenders are microtrasactions which are aimed at people with spending impulses, e.g. latest Fallout 76 shop is a prime example of this and "DLCs" that essentially are parts of the game that was already made but stripped just to artificially increase the game price.

[MadBro]

Who here felt obligated to give BP their money after the oil spill in the gulf?

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.

Fanboy is synonymous with cuck. These people buy things because they have made it their identity. Their emotional well being is tied to an IP. This is the real world equivalent of a girlfriend that walks all over you, but you're deadly afraid of being single. This is what companies want.

[Old Mate John]

I'm fine with dlc as an option if it's got content worthy of the price. The 1st dlc's for Destiny come to mind when I think of lazy cash grabs. They added nothing worthwhile to the game outside of a couple of side missions essentially. Witcher 3 is good go to game when looking at dlc/expansions done right. More devs and publishers should take that approach.

As for microtransactions I don't have any gripe with them when used in F2P games as a means to keep the game up and running (warframe) but I don't like when microtransactions and lootboxes are used in paid games to hide content from people who have already put money into the game and give the option to sink real money into it. Unlocking items with systems like Overwatch (I believe lootboxes are only available with in game money now), Battlefield (with its shortcut dlc's) or Halo 5 for example were always going to work in favour of those whales who can sink the most money into the game.