We used to have both good and bad games without microtransactions. I dont think its right to give concessions to game companies that include microtransactions just because its become so normalised.
I dont feel sorry for a game company that cant make literal billions from a game without adding a store.
They dont need billions to develop good games. Most of that profit goes straight to the top and overworked developers see very little of it.
You can have completely f2p games though that everyone can enjoy and that has microtransactions though. Then everyone can enjoy the game and if they want to spend money then do so. That was the point of my post.
It’s awful paying full price for a game with microtransactions though, that is shitty for sure.
Every single F2P game with microtransaction would be better as a single-purchase game. The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result.
I say that as someone who plays Genshin Impact (much in the same way someone might have a drinking or smoking habit). The general concept of the gameplay, the aesthetics, worldbuilding and music are interesting, but it is made worse by the microtransactions. It makes the game duller that you need to grind specific missions endlessly, for retention, for levelling up and stats-boosting artifacts rather than just by general gameplay, exploring, beating monsters and doing quests. The game is balanced worse to incentive people to keep buying lootboxes to get better weapons, unlock stronger characters and unlock skills for them. There is no avoiding that because the game is structured so that it gets in your way.
I’m not against the expansion type of DLCs, and even new character if it’s priced fairly, and for a game like this to pay once, reasonably for new regions and characters would have made a vastly more fun, less tiresome game to play. It would have made it a game I would proudly recommend. But they would rather fleece thousands of dollars out of gambling addicts, so there is always a gross feeling that it is ultimately twisted and I’m a fool for getting back to it.
The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result
This, this, this! When is a company ever going to sell something and not encourage people to buy it? "Oh hey, if you wanna skip the grind you can just gimme $5 ;) " yeah sure, that grind is an important part of the game (being sarcastic here) that I’m skipping by bribing the company in charge of it.
wanders off mumbling instead of spouting more sarcasm at other forms
I have to mention the single game I know of that doesn’t follow the model. Path of Exile is completely F2P, all microtransactions are purely cosmetic. Some argue you need to purchase more stash tabs than the base four the game comes with, but I think if you’re playing enough to need more tabs, it may be worth it to buy.
For me, I wanted to supports the devs, so I have a ridiculous amount of skins, pets, and portals from supporter packs, which have no bearing on your character’s power or progress.
And there is a new league/expansion every three months for free. That’s why it’s been kicking Diablos arse for quality for years.
I keep hearing good things about Path of Exile, though its a bit too complex for me. That might be one of the rare acceptable ones.
Focusing on cosmetics is generally the least offensive way to go about it although even that has its uglier side, such as Valve’s games relying on lootboxes and profiting from the trade of rare items at exorbitant prices. Whenever random chance and lootboxes are brought up, that is still targeting players with compulsive tendencies. All digital scarcity and rarity is artificial, after all. There is no reason why they couldn’t straight up sell an unlimited amount of sparkly hats and fancy gun skins. We could dismiss this as unimportant if it doesn’t affect the core gameplay but it’s still morally dubious if a game is being funded through the exploitation of a fraction of the audience.
There is another important caveat that cosmetics are not an issue as long as that is not a significant aspect of the game. Selling cosmetics in a Diablo-like is no big deal. Including cosmetic lootboxes in, say, Animal Crossing Pocket Camp, an All Ages game largely about decoration, is absolutely egregious, because in such a game there is no separating cosmetics from gameplay.
While I agree lootboxes are shite, and was dismayed when they brought them in, you can have them turned off in PoE if you have a compulsive/gambling issue (email support and they disable the purchase). Also, anything in a lootbox goes to the shop after the league ends, so you can just purchase the item. They also give a crap tonne of skins as challenge rewards for leagues, so you always be stylin’.
As for difficulty-- it has a steep learning curve! But once you get your sea legs (and later, Path of Building; free, community run) it’s impossible to go back to something like Diablo, imo. The intricacy and constant new leagues are the only reasons I’m still playing it seven years later :)
StarCraft is also F2P cosmetic only, as far as I remember. I haven’t played in about ten years though, before they went F2P so I could be wrong.
Mech Arena is F2P with some items behind a paywall, but it’s so few that you don’t really have to worry about it. It’s honestly a very simple and fun game without any need to pay. MAYBE I’ll run into a problem a few years from now when I’m so leveled up that I’m competing against people who put hundreds of dollars into the game, but it’s pretty clear that if that becomes a problem it’s a long way off.
The F2P model can be done wrong, and it can be done right.
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn’t exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games “back in the day” lived forever without any DLC. That’s just not true.
You want to call it false at the same time you admit that these systems are predatory? You can’t do both at once. What you are really saying is that you believe the exploitation is worth the longevity.
If anything the cosmetics second hand market is proof that something is wrong, when people resell a skin for over a thousand dollars. No in-game item is worth that much, and people only convince themselves it is because their scarcity is controlled for financial gain.
Mind you, I said it myself DLC is fine when done properly so you are not even acknowledging the options that I’m mentioning. Games can be maintained without microtransaction. Your response isn’t even directed at me, but the vague sentiment that you get from the thread in general.
And even on their case, there is something to be said in favor of games you can host yourself indefinitely, rather than relying on company servers that are locked down to sell microtransactions. What good is a game that is updated for a few years and then is gone forever? Even the ones who supported it intently are left with nothing. That’s the fate of the majority of freemium games.
Hur dur what a great addition to the discussion! May as well stick to Reddit and the meme forums if you’re not going to add anything of value to the comments.
It’s more of a “are good games with microtransactions good regardless of MTX or in spite of them?”
You can totally have a good game with MTX, but I think it always lowers the quality in some way, and they’re only good in spite. I don’t think OP is suggesting that no MTX guarantees a good game, but that a game should stand on its own merits and sell its whole experience instead of chopping itself up piecemeal
I kind of doubt that. A lot of things like say, character skins, are done using the “leftover artist hours”, when the core programming of the game is done, but there’s a lot of tweaks and fixes going in - and the character artists are left with nothing to do. Having them make downloadable items is just another way to justify keeping those artists on the payroll.
The man-hours spent in MTX can’t necessarily easily be redirected to make more singleplayer content. Generally, if a game just doesn’t have enough content or doesn’t feel satisfying, that’s my direct criticism of it - that they didn’t do a good enough job, and it should show up in reviews too. I also generally don’t buy MTX at all, and have rarely felt I got “less than a whole entity”.
There’s still code work going in that’s not going to get any extra money but the art work has to get extra money? I think that’s worth talking about. Is (visual, audio, etc.) art less necessary? Should it be seen that way?
Of course, some companies sell patches (DLCs that fix long-standing bugs certainly exist). Maybe there’s a kind of equality to come, code-work and art-work both getting exploited equally hard and wrung for every last cent.
I know and understand the whole idea of maximizing artist hours for cosmetic DLC. It’s an understandable reason for it to exist.
However, the big thing about MTX to me is the way it changes my perception of the game and how it feels to interact with it. Playing games without in-game cash shops or MTX allows me to focus on the game itself and feel that what I’ve purchased is one cohesive piece that works in a singular purpose towards a goal of something enjoyable to play and rewarding to explore the content of.
Something like Prey 2016. My entire memory and experience of playing that game is absolutely nothing but the experience of the lore, atmosphere, gameplay, decisions, and the creativity of exploration. At no point was I ever passing over menu options designed to sell me more piecemeal content, I wasn’t wading through a reel of battle pass cosmetics, I wasn’t attempting to ignore little rectangular ads on the main menu asking me to check some skins out.
And again, I totally understand why those things are there and I’m not inherently against their existence, I enjoy many games where those experiences are a part. In the end, I just believe that being free of that stuff absolutely makes a game feel perceptibly better and more pure, more of a game and less of a transparently monetized product.
I also feel like there’s a sort of forbidden knowledge aspect to the whole “maximizing artist labor time for cosmetic MTX”. The best way for cosmetic MTX to happen is to utilize extra possible labor time that couldn’t be used elsewhere. I’d love to believe that any cosmetic MTX took no time or development from any other part of the game. I’d love to believe that no amazing visual design for armor or weapons was held because its more premium appearance would better fit a paid item than a free base game one.
But you’ll never know that for sure. There will always be that inkling of cynical doubt that the cool item got a price tag and the okay one ended up in the base game. That the visual artists are so burnt making constant art for base game and then MTX that their energy couldn’t be focused solely on the core experience. I can assume, I can take the company’s word for it, but I’ll never be able to cleanse my mind of the knowledge that it’s a separate kind of content from the base game.
In another thread, someone brought up how Paradox games, while they do have tons of DLC, only advertise it on the Steam store, not any ingame ads. Would that still allow for the same kind of within-game, immersive, undistracted experience? I should maybe point out that Prey 2016 did have DLC, both for preorder bonus weapons you receive when you get to Morgan’s office, and for its Mooncrash campaign. I think it’s very possible and likely to enjoy a game like that both before, and after, having learned such things existed.
Personally, yeah, I find it much less offensive if the extra purchases do not nag you in-game and their presence is not missed or noticed in terms of affecting balance.
For example, Middle Earth Shadow of War infamously let you buy Uruks. Having played the fuck out of that game I can confidently say the game was balanced such that you never needed to do that (apart from the end game grind, but the grind is the gameplay, so if you hit end game and didnt want to grind, you just didn’t wanna keep playing), but having it appear in the menus was jarring and the idea of buying an Uruk with real money juxtaposed next to the mechanical intent of obtaining Uruks through exploration, marking, stalking, and exploiting their weaknesses just stuck out like a cynical sore thumb.
If they put the Uruk purchases outside the game with no in-game ads and I played through Shadow of War and was like “man holy shit, my Uruks cannot keep up with the curve, this is insanely grindy” and I discovered that you could buy them and skip it, I’d say thats dastardly as well.
But the happy medium would be balancing it so it wasn’t necessary, but providing an external purchase to milk that revenue if they really still wanted to. That example is moot now anyway since they eventually removed the MTX Uruks entirely.
Agreed. I think the poster just means games should be sold as a whole, to which I agree. Whether it’s a good game or not is a different thing entirely!
I think there’s a strong possibility you’re correct, especially with that genre. When it comes to purely competitive games continual new content and adjustments keep the masses coming back, and providing those things long term with no monetization is a business suicidal idea, and I think that strong reasoning like that excuses a lot of the cynicism and bad faith behind MTX in those specific cases provided its still relatively fair.
I give you an A+ for an actual strong argument for MTX (in those and related cases)
I’m thinking of all the times I’ve said, “You know what makes this game great? The microtransactions.” All ZERO times.
There are bad games and good games. Microtransactions make bad games worse AND good games worse. I intentionally only pay for games without microtransactions. THEY move the game from “I’m interested” (like with the rerelease of dungeon keeper) to “Well, I can play the OG version on GOG. Without microtransactions, I’ll do that.”
That business model ONLY works out for the business. It is NOT for the best interest of the customer.
So while what you said is right, you are incorrect.
I’ve been able to play games (and apps) for free because of microtransactions and I assume you have as well. Most of the most popular games in the world are free thanks to microtransactions and allow millions of players to enjoy great games for free.
I have purposely bought microtransactions to support the developer because I’ve enjoyed the game so much and wanted to give back. You may not have, but that’s ok.
So no, to say that microtransactions just make a game bad is a very poor understanding of the issue. It’s incredible we can play some absolutely amazing games without having to pay a cent.
Please think a bit more critically about this issue instead of a knee-jerk reaction that microtransactions are bad.
“I’ve been able to play games for free because of microtransactions”
Microtransactions cost money, that’s not free. What you are saying here is you got to play a game without supporting the devs while OTHER people paid for microtransactions.
You assume incorrectly, I support devs by buying games, not supporting microtransactions.
“Most of the most popular games in the world are free…” First, like hell. Show me stats that support a claim that MOST popular games are free. Second, if a game is supported by microtransactions, you’re lying if you say it’s free. MICROTRANSACTIONS ARE NOT FREE.
Next “I have purposely bought microtransactions to support the developer…” I support the dev by buying the game.
Microtransactions make a good game bad, and bad games worse. None of what you said made an argument for microtransactions. Microtransactions encourage devs to hide fixes behind pay walls, even small ones.
My statements weren’t kneejerk. Your nonsense obviously wasn’t even thought through as it’s internally inconsistent.
So if we go by steam charts and other factors, the most played games are f2p yes. Fortnite, csgo and dota 2 are in the top 5. The top 2 spots are f2p. So yes, those are the most popular games and this isn’t even a peak time for them and they’re far more popular than a game like bg3.
A f2p game is by definition free. That’s the choice the devs made and whether it works or not is up to how good the game is and how enticing their microtransactions are. But yes - I do not have to spend any money to play them. The game is literally free. If someone else pays for an item and gives it to you, are you going to argue the item wasn’t free? It makes no sense.
Also, so they make fortnite worse? Dota 2 worse? Cs go worse? The answer is no, it makes zero difference. But they do make excellent games free. I don’t see how you could possibly argue that those games are bad purely because they have microtransactions. That’s the issue I have with your argument as it’s illogical.
Also, microtransactions encourage devs to hide fixes behind paywalls? This is flat out wrong when it’s purely cosmetic, and in most games I think it’s also wrong. You get powercreep issues which is an issue with those sorts of games, but I think that happens in any sort of long game (thinking card games in particular like hearthstone).
I think you are just playing bad games which is the issue, or just haven’t thought this through as I said.
If someone wants to spend thousands on microtransactions for cosmetics and enjoy it, then that’s their prerogative as well. Where it’s predatory it sucks, but otherwise I’ve gone down that hole and really enjoyed spending money on cool cosmetics or to enjoy a game more for a time. When I’ve had the money it’s made good games even more enjoyable, but I still loved the base game otherwise I wouldn’t be spending money on it.
We were talking about microtransactions. You jumped to free to play.
Not all games that have microtransactions are fre to play.
So you’ve lied again. Not as easy you thought.
What you need to do is grab ALL games with microtransactions. You need to grab stats on ALL free games. You need to grab stats on hidden cost games (also called free to play).
“Where it’s predatory it sucks” - The literal definition of microtransactions.
I think we’re done here. You think video gaming is what’s happened in the past ten years. I played my first video game in 1979 on an Atari 2600. I remember Pacman fever, I lived in California during it. I remember when Space Ace and Dragoons Lair came out in the arcades and cost .50 instead of a quarter…
Tell me again how I’m “just playing bad games…” You just can’t see the forest for the trees…
I’ve definitely often said “You know what makes this game possible, alive and updated regularly even years after release? Microtransactions!” They don’t just make (some) games better, they make (some) games even possible at all.
I don’t mind IAP purchases in any games but when I start up a game for the first time and the biggest for first option you see is to buy more stuff it makes me really annoyed . I just bought the game let me play it before tryung to sell me more stuff that I don’t want .
This is a poor take.
You can have games without micro transactions that are trash, and f2p games with micro transactions that are great.
It’s not binary black or white and ultimately it’s the game/developer that is great, not the business model.
i agree with you but on the flip side a $60+ game shouldn’t have macro transactions and a GaaS should not be full price.
Yeah very true on this! I’m only thinking about full f2p games with micro transactions or full games without them.
The ones in the middle are often not implemented well.
We used to have both good and bad games without microtransactions. I dont think its right to give concessions to game companies that include microtransactions just because its become so normalised.
I dont feel sorry for a game company that cant make literal billions from a game without adding a store.
They dont need billions to develop good games. Most of that profit goes straight to the top and overworked developers see very little of it.
You can have completely f2p games though that everyone can enjoy and that has microtransactions though. Then everyone can enjoy the game and if they want to spend money then do so. That was the point of my post.
It’s awful paying full price for a game with microtransactions though, that is shitty for sure.
@DingoBilly @Mr_Dr_Oink
Cosmetic only microtransactions which don’t effect gameplay should always be welcome. Look at Dota 2.
Yeah i have no issue with cosmetic stuff. But if it affects gameplay then no way
Every single F2P game with microtransaction would be better as a single-purchase game. The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result.
I say that as someone who plays Genshin Impact (much in the same way someone might have a drinking or smoking habit). The general concept of the gameplay, the aesthetics, worldbuilding and music are interesting, but it is made worse by the microtransactions. It makes the game duller that you need to grind specific missions endlessly, for retention, for levelling up and stats-boosting artifacts rather than just by general gameplay, exploring, beating monsters and doing quests. The game is balanced worse to incentive people to keep buying lootboxes to get better weapons, unlock stronger characters and unlock skills for them. There is no avoiding that because the game is structured so that it gets in your way.
I’m not against the expansion type of DLCs, and even new character if it’s priced fairly, and for a game like this to pay once, reasonably for new regions and characters would have made a vastly more fun, less tiresome game to play. It would have made it a game I would proudly recommend. But they would rather fleece thousands of dollars out of gambling addicts, so there is always a gross feeling that it is ultimately twisted and I’m a fool for getting back to it.
This, this, this! When is a company ever going to sell something and not encourage people to buy it? "Oh hey, if you wanna skip the grind you can just gimme $5 ;) " yeah sure, that grind is an important part of the game (being sarcastic here) that I’m skipping by bribing the company in charge of it.
wanders off mumbling instead of spouting more sarcasm at other forms
I have to mention the single game I know of that doesn’t follow the model. Path of Exile is completely F2P, all microtransactions are purely cosmetic. Some argue you need to purchase more stash tabs than the base four the game comes with, but I think if you’re playing enough to need more tabs, it may be worth it to buy.
For me, I wanted to supports the devs, so I have a ridiculous amount of skins, pets, and portals from supporter packs, which have no bearing on your character’s power or progress.
And there is a new league/expansion every three months for free. That’s why it’s been kicking Diablos arse for quality for years.
Ah, yes. The ““purely cosmetic”” stash tabs that are required to participate in selling items in any meaningful capacity.
I’d rather buy PoE and have the full game as intended than be nickel-and-dimed to be able to trade for gear.
I keep hearing good things about Path of Exile, though its a bit too complex for me. That might be one of the rare acceptable ones.
Focusing on cosmetics is generally the least offensive way to go about it although even that has its uglier side, such as Valve’s games relying on lootboxes and profiting from the trade of rare items at exorbitant prices. Whenever random chance and lootboxes are brought up, that is still targeting players with compulsive tendencies. All digital scarcity and rarity is artificial, after all. There is no reason why they couldn’t straight up sell an unlimited amount of sparkly hats and fancy gun skins. We could dismiss this as unimportant if it doesn’t affect the core gameplay but it’s still morally dubious if a game is being funded through the exploitation of a fraction of the audience.
There is another important caveat that cosmetics are not an issue as long as that is not a significant aspect of the game. Selling cosmetics in a Diablo-like is no big deal. Including cosmetic lootboxes in, say, Animal Crossing Pocket Camp, an All Ages game largely about decoration, is absolutely egregious, because in such a game there is no separating cosmetics from gameplay.
While I agree lootboxes are shite, and was dismayed when they brought them in, you can have them turned off in PoE if you have a compulsive/gambling issue (email support and they disable the purchase). Also, anything in a lootbox goes to the shop after the league ends, so you can just purchase the item. They also give a crap tonne of skins as challenge rewards for leagues, so you always be stylin’.
As for difficulty-- it has a steep learning curve! But once you get your sea legs (and later, Path of Building; free, community run) it’s impossible to go back to something like Diablo, imo. The intricacy and constant new leagues are the only reasons I’m still playing it seven years later :)
StarCraft is also F2P cosmetic only, as far as I remember. I haven’t played in about ten years though, before they went F2P so I could be wrong.
Mech Arena is F2P with some items behind a paywall, but it’s so few that you don’t really have to worry about it. It’s honestly a very simple and fun game without any need to pay. MAYBE I’ll run into a problem a few years from now when I’m so leveled up that I’m competing against people who put hundreds of dollars into the game, but it’s pretty clear that if that becomes a problem it’s a long way off.
The F2P model can be done wrong, and it can be done right.
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn’t exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games “back in the day” lived forever without any DLC. That’s just not true.
You want to call it false at the same time you admit that these systems are predatory? You can’t do both at once. What you are really saying is that you believe the exploitation is worth the longevity.
If anything the cosmetics second hand market is proof that something is wrong, when people resell a skin for over a thousand dollars. No in-game item is worth that much, and people only convince themselves it is because their scarcity is controlled for financial gain.
Mind you, I said it myself DLC is fine when done properly so you are not even acknowledging the options that I’m mentioning. Games can be maintained without microtransaction. Your response isn’t even directed at me, but the vague sentiment that you get from the thread in general.
And even on their case, there is something to be said in favor of games you can host yourself indefinitely, rather than relying on company servers that are locked down to sell microtransactions. What good is a game that is updated for a few years and then is gone forever? Even the ones who supported it intently are left with nothing. That’s the fate of the majority of freemium games.
deleted by creator
I might be missing something but a cursory search shows CSGO went F2P 1.5 years before Valorants release.
Refers to the text that follows it, I assume?
Hur dur what a great addition to the discussion! May as well stick to Reddit and the meme forums if you’re not going to add anything of value to the comments.
Yeah ok I guess I need to spell out that simping for micro transactions is a bad thing…
It’s more of a “are good games with microtransactions good regardless of MTX or in spite of them?”
You can totally have a good game with MTX, but I think it always lowers the quality in some way, and they’re only good in spite. I don’t think OP is suggesting that no MTX guarantees a good game, but that a game should stand on its own merits and sell its whole experience instead of chopping itself up piecemeal
I kind of doubt that. A lot of things like say, character skins, are done using the “leftover artist hours”, when the core programming of the game is done, but there’s a lot of tweaks and fixes going in - and the character artists are left with nothing to do. Having them make downloadable items is just another way to justify keeping those artists on the payroll.
The man-hours spent in MTX can’t necessarily easily be redirected to make more singleplayer content. Generally, if a game just doesn’t have enough content or doesn’t feel satisfying, that’s my direct criticism of it - that they didn’t do a good enough job, and it should show up in reviews too. I also generally don’t buy MTX at all, and have rarely felt I got “less than a whole entity”.
There’s still code work going in that’s not going to get any extra money but the art work has to get extra money? I think that’s worth talking about. Is (visual, audio, etc.) art less necessary? Should it be seen that way?
Of course, some companies sell patches (DLCs that fix long-standing bugs certainly exist). Maybe there’s a kind of equality to come, code-work and art-work both getting exploited equally hard and wrung for every last cent.
I know and understand the whole idea of maximizing artist hours for cosmetic DLC. It’s an understandable reason for it to exist.
However, the big thing about MTX to me is the way it changes my perception of the game and how it feels to interact with it. Playing games without in-game cash shops or MTX allows me to focus on the game itself and feel that what I’ve purchased is one cohesive piece that works in a singular purpose towards a goal of something enjoyable to play and rewarding to explore the content of.
Something like Prey 2016. My entire memory and experience of playing that game is absolutely nothing but the experience of the lore, atmosphere, gameplay, decisions, and the creativity of exploration. At no point was I ever passing over menu options designed to sell me more piecemeal content, I wasn’t wading through a reel of battle pass cosmetics, I wasn’t attempting to ignore little rectangular ads on the main menu asking me to check some skins out.
And again, I totally understand why those things are there and I’m not inherently against their existence, I enjoy many games where those experiences are a part. In the end, I just believe that being free of that stuff absolutely makes a game feel perceptibly better and more pure, more of a game and less of a transparently monetized product.
I also feel like there’s a sort of forbidden knowledge aspect to the whole “maximizing artist labor time for cosmetic MTX”. The best way for cosmetic MTX to happen is to utilize extra possible labor time that couldn’t be used elsewhere. I’d love to believe that any cosmetic MTX took no time or development from any other part of the game. I’d love to believe that no amazing visual design for armor or weapons was held because its more premium appearance would better fit a paid item than a free base game one.
But you’ll never know that for sure. There will always be that inkling of cynical doubt that the cool item got a price tag and the okay one ended up in the base game. That the visual artists are so burnt making constant art for base game and then MTX that their energy couldn’t be focused solely on the core experience. I can assume, I can take the company’s word for it, but I’ll never be able to cleanse my mind of the knowledge that it’s a separate kind of content from the base game.
In another thread, someone brought up how Paradox games, while they do have tons of DLC, only advertise it on the Steam store, not any ingame ads. Would that still allow for the same kind of within-game, immersive, undistracted experience? I should maybe point out that Prey 2016 did have DLC, both for preorder bonus weapons you receive when you get to Morgan’s office, and for its Mooncrash campaign. I think it’s very possible and likely to enjoy a game like that both before, and after, having learned such things existed.
Personally, yeah, I find it much less offensive if the extra purchases do not nag you in-game and their presence is not missed or noticed in terms of affecting balance.
For example, Middle Earth Shadow of War infamously let you buy Uruks. Having played the fuck out of that game I can confidently say the game was balanced such that you never needed to do that (apart from the end game grind, but the grind is the gameplay, so if you hit end game and didnt want to grind, you just didn’t wanna keep playing), but having it appear in the menus was jarring and the idea of buying an Uruk with real money juxtaposed next to the mechanical intent of obtaining Uruks through exploration, marking, stalking, and exploiting their weaknesses just stuck out like a cynical sore thumb.
If they put the Uruk purchases outside the game with no in-game ads and I played through Shadow of War and was like “man holy shit, my Uruks cannot keep up with the curve, this is insanely grindy” and I discovered that you could buy them and skip it, I’d say thats dastardly as well.
But the happy medium would be balancing it so it wasn’t necessary, but providing an external purchase to milk that revenue if they really still wanted to. That example is moot now anyway since they eventually removed the MTX Uruks entirely.
Agreed. I think the poster just means games should be sold as a whole, to which I agree. Whether it’s a good game or not is a different thing entirely!
A lot of games are only possible because of microtransactions. Love 'em or hate 'em, MOBAs would’ve long died without microtransactions.
I think there’s a strong possibility you’re correct, especially with that genre. When it comes to purely competitive games continual new content and adjustments keep the masses coming back, and providing those things long term with no monetization is a business suicidal idea, and I think that strong reasoning like that excuses a lot of the cynicism and bad faith behind MTX in those specific cases provided its still relatively fair.
I give you an A+ for an actual strong argument for MTX (in those and related cases)
I’m thinking of all the times I’ve said, “You know what makes this game great? The microtransactions.” All ZERO times.
There are bad games and good games. Microtransactions make bad games worse AND good games worse. I intentionally only pay for games without microtransactions. THEY move the game from “I’m interested” (like with the rerelease of dungeon keeper) to “Well, I can play the OG version on GOG. Without microtransactions, I’ll do that.”
That business model ONLY works out for the business. It is NOT for the best interest of the customer.
So while what you said is right, you are incorrect.
I’ve been able to play games (and apps) for free because of microtransactions and I assume you have as well. Most of the most popular games in the world are free thanks to microtransactions and allow millions of players to enjoy great games for free.
I have purposely bought microtransactions to support the developer because I’ve enjoyed the game so much and wanted to give back. You may not have, but that’s ok.
So no, to say that microtransactions just make a game bad is a very poor understanding of the issue. It’s incredible we can play some absolutely amazing games without having to pay a cent.
Please think a bit more critically about this issue instead of a knee-jerk reaction that microtransactions are bad.
Okay, let’s think critically.
“I’ve been able to play games for free because of microtransactions”
Microtransactions cost money, that’s not free. What you are saying here is you got to play a game without supporting the devs while OTHER people paid for microtransactions.
You assume incorrectly, I support devs by buying games, not supporting microtransactions.
“Most of the most popular games in the world are free…” First, like hell. Show me stats that support a claim that MOST popular games are free. Second, if a game is supported by microtransactions, you’re lying if you say it’s free. MICROTRANSACTIONS ARE NOT FREE.
Next “I have purposely bought microtransactions to support the developer…” I support the dev by buying the game.
Microtransactions make a good game bad, and bad games worse. None of what you said made an argument for microtransactions. Microtransactions encourage devs to hide fixes behind pay walls, even small ones.
My statements weren’t kneejerk. Your nonsense obviously wasn’t even thought through as it’s internally inconsistent.
I look forward to you trying again.
Ok this is pretty easy lol.
So if we go by steam charts and other factors, the most played games are f2p yes. Fortnite, csgo and dota 2 are in the top 5. The top 2 spots are f2p. So yes, those are the most popular games and this isn’t even a peak time for them and they’re far more popular than a game like bg3.
A f2p game is by definition free. That’s the choice the devs made and whether it works or not is up to how good the game is and how enticing their microtransactions are. But yes - I do not have to spend any money to play them. The game is literally free. If someone else pays for an item and gives it to you, are you going to argue the item wasn’t free? It makes no sense.
Also, so they make fortnite worse? Dota 2 worse? Cs go worse? The answer is no, it makes zero difference. But they do make excellent games free. I don’t see how you could possibly argue that those games are bad purely because they have microtransactions. That’s the issue I have with your argument as it’s illogical.
Also, microtransactions encourage devs to hide fixes behind paywalls? This is flat out wrong when it’s purely cosmetic, and in most games I think it’s also wrong. You get powercreep issues which is an issue with those sorts of games, but I think that happens in any sort of long game (thinking card games in particular like hearthstone).
I think you are just playing bad games which is the issue, or just haven’t thought this through as I said.
If someone wants to spend thousands on microtransactions for cosmetics and enjoy it, then that’s their prerogative as well. Where it’s predatory it sucks, but otherwise I’ve gone down that hole and really enjoyed spending money on cool cosmetics or to enjoy a game more for a time. When I’ve had the money it’s made good games even more enjoyable, but I still loved the base game otherwise I wouldn’t be spending money on it.
There’s a problem with your starting point.
We were talking about microtransactions. You jumped to free to play.
Not all games that have microtransactions are fre to play.
So you’ve lied again. Not as easy you thought.
What you need to do is grab ALL games with microtransactions. You need to grab stats on ALL free games. You need to grab stats on hidden cost games (also called free to play).
Try again junior.
And try thinking this time.
And I’ll add the most important thing you forgot…
You have around 50 years of game data to sift through… Not just what a limited set from Steam gives you.
I’ll wait.
“I think you’re just playing bad games…”
Like Baldur’s Gate 3?
“Where it’s predatory it sucks” - The literal definition of microtransactions.
I think we’re done here. You think video gaming is what’s happened in the past ten years. I played my first video game in 1979 on an Atari 2600. I remember Pacman fever, I lived in California during it. I remember when Space Ace and Dragoons Lair came out in the arcades and cost .50 instead of a quarter…
Tell me again how I’m “just playing bad games…” You just can’t see the forest for the trees…
I’ve definitely often said “You know what makes this game possible, alive and updated regularly even years after release? Microtransactions!” They don’t just make (some) games better, they make (some) games even possible at all.
How did it happen before microtransactions?
I don’t mind IAP purchases in any games but when I start up a game for the first time and the biggest for first option you see is to buy more stuff it makes me really annoyed . I just bought the game let me play it before tryung to sell me more stuff that I don’t want .