NO this has nothing to do with e621 like the last topic I made...

Straight forward topic; just post what you're thoughts are about micro-transactions. And if you want, you can add in what you think a micro-transaction system should be like to be fair.

I'm not a big fan of micro-transactions. Even cosmetic ones, honestly, though those are less of an issue. I'd generally rather pay outright for a game (or even for expansion for a game I already have, though that has it's own issues), or a subscription to a game, than have it be of the micro-transaction model.

That said, it also depends on the game. For instance, I've played Maplestory before, and for some reason I don't mind their model too much (for a variety of reasons... among which are, there is essentially no PvP, they are trying to lessen the effect of micro-transactions on the game because it got out of hand, it's a large game that has had a lot of effort put into it, and I never really considered the game to have "integrity" to begin with). However, I also played Runescape at one point (yeah, not doing myself any favors right now), and I quit when they started pushing the micro-transactions.

i hate them apart from the ones in TF2 because those are entirely optional

I've used them mostly as a way to donate to the developers/company making the game, and usually shortly before I stop playing.

That is unless it is to get additional content (not like an item, but think something like more levels), but that's kind of rare to see nowadays.

Clawdragons said:
I'm not a big fan of micro-transactions. Even cosmetic ones, honestly, though those are less of an issue. I'd generally rather pay outright for a game (or even for expansion for a game I already have, though that has it's own issues), or a subscription to a game, than have it be of the micro-transaction model.

I mostly share this opinion, but...I actually think that cosmetic microtransactions can be a great thing. I'd rather pay outright for a game than deal with functional microtransactions, but I think that the DOTA 2 model (free access to all of the gameplay, microtransactions exclusively for cosmetics) is best of all. The ability to play the entire game for free is amazing, and then if I like it, once I have some free money I can throw it at the developers for cosmetics.

As long those paid options are not game changing, or if there's an alternative way to get this item, I don't have any problem with those. That's for games you already paid for.

For free games, I don't know. Mostly depends on the pricing. Like for that 3DS Badge Arcade thing. I can't stand it. 1$ for basically 5 stamps for your home menu (If you do get them) is very disgusting. I heard about a free play per day, but as far as I know, it is for "dummy" stamps that you can exchange for a coin, and I'm ready to bet you need lots of them for one. Glad there are homebrews so I can actually use a custom theme instead

I like them as long as they are 100% optional and not actually needed to get the most out of your game. For Example, Arkham City had multiple dlc characters but none were needed to fully enjoy the game. Even buying Catwoman was more of an added tidbit and you honestly could live without her scenes in the story. Things I don't like are when they actually cause your gameplay to change drastically to the point of having a competitive edge.

One Example is a game called Elsword where they are greedy beyond all reason. Not only is the paid content stat boosting, it's actually considered NEEDED. Whether it's giving your character better stats, more inventory, or just more abilities instantly at your disposal. I hate this with a passion.

On the other hand games like League of Legends and Warframe require you to pay nothing albeit you will have to spend more time to get what you want, but none of the paid content gives you an actual edge in game and it never shoves pressure to buy anything down your throat beyond an advertisement for new content which is by all means reasonable.

Snowy said:
I mostly share this opinion, but...I actually think that cosmetic microtransactions can be a great thing. I'd rather pay outright for a game than deal with functional microtransactions, but I think that the DOTA 2 model (free access to all of the gameplay, microtransactions exclusively for cosmetics) is best of all. The ability to play the entire game for free is amazing, and then if I like it, once I have some free money I can throw it at the developers for cosmetics.

I actually like Dota's system, but for different reasons: I like how you can technically get the cosmetic items just by playing the game, though they are rare. It gives the feeling of "It doesn't matter if you have this, and you aren't barred from it, it'll just be slow going". Which I sort of like that feel, and if anything, it makes me more willing to support the game with micro-transactions, knowing I don't need to.

Oh! There is one game I can think of that I feel hugely positive about as far as this sort of thing goes. Kingdom of Loathing. Even though they release items that benefit gameplay, I nonetheless absolutely approve of the way they go about it. Because the content you get for the transactions is actually interesting.

Personally, I prefer to purchase the game all at once, and purchase them physically for the most part. I don't really have much experience with micro-transactions because I play my games on Nintendo Systems, and hardly ever bother with PC or Mobile games.

I dislike microtransactions, especially for non-F2P games. Why buy a game if it only means more money is going to be needed to play it?
Triple A titles do not need microtransactions because they already have made so much money and I find it extremely distasteful for big companies to add such a feature in after charging $50 for it.

evil -_-

in MMOs: pretty much every game i ever come across that has micro-transactions aside from the few rare games such as PoE where the existence of micro-transactions don't destroy any and all sense of balance the game has.

generally, any game with micro-transactions is considered pay-to-win and/or outright bad from the start. if it has a cash shop then at least a couple assumptions can typically be made safely:

1. the game is completely unbalanced due to the existence of said cash shop.

2. the game is broken and full of bugs and glitches. with the devs of such games sometimes caring so little that such problems may never get fixed no matter how much cash people foolishly throw at the devs.

in the case of tech support, i REALLY hope this doesn't start a trend but i know at least kixeye now requires you to have spent at least a certain amount of $ across a certain amount of months (i forgot the details, sorry). otherwise,if you fail to meet they're requirement you can say goodbye to they're premium tech support. so yeah, buying tech support in a browser based mmo is now a thing.

then theres that whale hunting thing. on kongregate i once saw a forum post where someone who had spent kreds equal to $100 on a mmo that had micro-transactions then complaining about the problems the game had. all i could do was laugh and shake my head in shame at the thought of anyone doing something so foolish. the devs of that game clearly had no intention of fixing the problems and the game pretty much existed just to lure in whales like that so they'd throw money at said devs.

overall, the question i wish would get raised more often is this: how have micro-transactions NOT been bad for games since they're original introduction into video games? the answer is likely, almost never. probably the only people who really like that business model are devs using it to squeeze cash out of they're complaining player base.

sadly, even console games are no longer safe from this bs. as seen in mortal kombat and several others. if it's a single player game then the addition of micro-transactions is inexcusable BS.

to finish, ihave a question of my own: how many games do you guys know of that have micro-transactions that aren't devoid of gameplay balance, aren't broken and unlikely to ever be fixed, or aren't considered pay-to-win?

always remember, if it has micro-transactions it's not free-to-play, it's free-to-pay.

treos said:
to finish, ihave a question of my own: how many games do you guys know of that have micro-transactions that aren't devoid of gameplay balance, aren't broken and unlikely to ever be fixed, or aren't considered pay-to-win?

always remember, if it has micro-transactions it's not free-to-play, it's free-to-pay.

Roughly every MOBA. Sure, in most of them you need to buy characters, but there's always a free rotation (if applicable) and the developers really do try to keep the characters balanced. And you can buy the characters just by playing the game. It'll take a while, but what you're buying is flexibility, not power.

Absolutley every micro-transaction (apart from cosmetic ones and micro-transactions in f2p games) are to be despised, becouse even if they are "optional", which dev. wouldn't want people spending more money on their game. They may even unintentionally do it, but you will get a better experience. Not cool if you already payed for the game.

Imma just put my opinion on how micros should be short and simple
TF2: Yes
Metal Slug Defence: Yes
Payday 2: No, shame on you if you thought otherwise
Nexon in general: No

Neitsuke said:
As long those paid options are not game changing, or if there's an alternative way to get this item, I don't have any problem with those. That's for games you already paid for.

For free games, I don't know. Mostly depends on the pricing. Like for that 3DS Badge Arcade thing. I can't stand it. 1$ for basically 5 stamps for your home menu (If you do get them) is very disgusting. I heard about a free play per day, but as far as I know, it is for "dummy" stamps that you can exchange for a coin, and I'm ready to bet you need lots of them for one. Glad there are homebrews so I can actually use a custom theme instead

Gonna edit this into one comment later (my previous one and this one, typing on my phone is hell), but the kind of thinking that is "ah, you can do that without money, it is just harder" is bad, look at for example, Clash of Clans. Now, while I do not play it, I do know you can pay to speed up. If that kind of shit happens in title which you pay for, it deserves a score that goes into the negative.

GenerallyBi said:
"ah, you can do that without money, it is just harder"

every. single. mmo strategy game. EVER. that entire mmo genre is built around a combination of this and F2P (free-to-pay is more appropriate than free-to-play).

well...those and the never ending stream of korean cookie cutter mmo's. those have they're moments but they still generally suck for other reasons.

why can't people be less driven by greed and make more games that are actually fun? less greed, more fun.

edit: ah, hese what i was looking for. kongregate: Don't Call Them Whales: F2P Spenders and Virtual Value

alt title: don't call them what they are.

and another one Idle Games: Mechanics and Monetization of Self-Playing Games

Heh e621 DLC

"Free to play" games are horrible, the addiction can be bad too...paying to win, completing a story, or to be the best are the worst kind of games you'd come across. They're quick cash grab and there's no fun in it. I'd say more...but I'm tired and should sleep.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Heh e621 DLC

Does it come with FF7 Cloud?

TheHuskyK9 said:
Heh e621 DLC

I would buy that, I have no shame .-.

If the prevalence of the microtransaction business model didn't divert potential developer forces away from games following other models, then I wouldn't mind their existence. More people making more games for uncaptured market segments is a good thing. Everybody wins. However, that naivety is fallacious.

Based on my experiences, I do not like the decision forced upon players by F2P games, and I don't want that decision worming its way into future, present, or past games if it means fewer traditional games will exist than could exist. With an F2P game, a player must decide between spending money to enhance their experience or saving money at the cost of time, performance, and/or a limited experience. That decision is not fun to make, and it breaks immersion. I try to spend as little money as possible, as do most people, so I won't want to pay anything when dealing with a free game, meaning I'm confronted with that decision and its consequences regularly, a reminder that I loathe. I hate being reminded that my obstinance limits my experience. It's some kind of suffering.

treos et al. said:
overall, the question i wish would get raised more often is this: how have micro-transactions NOT been bad for games since they're original introduction into video games? the answer is likely, almost never. probably the only people who really like that business model are devs using it to squeeze cash out of they're complaining player base.

to finish, ihave a question of my own: how many games do you guys know of that have micro-transactions that aren't devoid of gameplay balance, aren't broken and unlikely to ever be fixed, or aren't considered pay-to-win?

I guess people aren't really thinking about microtransactions outside F2P game funding models. Also, single-player experiences can support microtransactions where there is no online player community to unbalance or otherwise enrage, of course presuming the single-player experience isn't unfair or gimped.

The strong consensus in the relevant forums was that microtransactions for Mass Effect 3's multiplayer largely paid for Bioware's continued support of multiplayer, in the form of bug patches, weekly balance updates, free content DLCs (maps, weapons, classes; significant post-release content), and mass bannings of reported cheaters, for one year. The entire symbiosis was arguably above board.

One other example comes from BF3. In short, pay $40 extra to unlock all the weapons, cutting out what would most likely be over 100 hours of grinding, which didn't seem too daunting on its own when I played. I don't really know the intimate details of this because I believe I stopped playing by the time this "micro"transaction came out and I never did care much for BF3, so here's a blog post for context. As long as the grind is fair and this kind of microtransaction doesn't upset the apple cart, I don't see this as being a bad thing.

Regardless, I'm completely sympathetic to the type of person whom this benefits most: the person who works regular or longer hours and may have a family with little time for their own entertainment. Suppose this type of person can only fit a few hours of video games into their weekly schedule. Should they be expected to follow the same grind as everyone else just to unlock everything, knowing that could take a year? I think that's unreasonable.

Stopping myself there. also loltextlimit

TheHuskyK9 said:
Heh e621 DLC

Where can I invest!?