Microtransactions: Has Video Games Industry Gone Corrupt?

[LeGeNd-1]

Ok, I get your point. MTs are a necessary evil in today's world because development costs on latest gen games are ridiculously high to be profitable for startup developers.

That still doesn't make it a right thing to do. Especially for AAA devs that already have an established name. That's my view anyways.

 

[Imari]

Ok, I get your point. MTs are a necessary evil in today's world because development costs on latest gen games are ridiculously high to be profitable for startup developers.

That still doesn't make it a right thing to do. Especially for AAA devs that already have an established name. That's my view anyways.

What would be right then?

Higher sticker prices on games? Less content overall?

Microtransactions are a way of developers covering their costs and meeting their profit goals. If you remove that, then savings need to come from elsewhere or you need to start cutting the game down.

So, let's say you are in charge of GT7. You will under no circumstances allow microtransactions to be part of the game. What do you do to make up for that loss of revenue?

 

[Lain]

When handled properly, microtransactions can be reasonable.

When handled improperly, they can be outright unacceptable.

I find forced waiting to be one of the more annoying forms of microtransactions. In free games, it's understandable... I don't like it and I'll never pay to expedite something in the digital world unless it's a small one-time fee that gets rid of the waiting permanently. However, in games that you're already paying good money for, I think it's completely unacceptable. There's no reason I should have an arbitrary waiting period forced upon me in a game that I've already paid the price of entry for. Some people might argue that such microtransactions forcing people to continually pay up are acceptable even in a for-pay game, but I argue that you've gotta draw the line somewhere... otherwise it's a slippery slope that'll lead us to full-price Final Fantasy games where after each battle, you have to wait 5 minutes to resume playing or pay a little bit of real money to temporarily skip that waiting period.

Microtransactions should be approached as paying for cheat codes (even if only temporary) or extra content. They should not be approached with the mindset of paying to un-gimp a game, unless the game is free in which case it's basically tantamount to un-gimping a demo version of a game... but even then it's not very pleasant, since you're usually only temporarily un-gimping it with microtransactions.

 

[Zenith]

Immoral? Corrupt? Might want to check some of these definitions.

Valve does micro transactions well in games like Dota and TF2. Weapons and items that have an actual gameplay effect are cheap and can be earned through regular gameplay, while cosmetic items can get pricey.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

What would be right then?

Higher sticker prices on games? Less content overall?

Microtransactions are a way of developers covering their costs and meeting their profit goals. If you remove that, then savings need to come from elsewhere or you need to start cutting the game down.

So, let's say you are in charge of GT7. You will under no circumstances allow microtransactions to be part of the game. What do you do to make up for that loss of revenue?

I don't mind paying $20 extra on $80 sticker price if that means all content is included at launch, instead of paying another $50 on DLCs down the line that are just content being held back.

I must also stress that I have no problems paying for DLCs created AFTER launch. Those are not MTs to me, unless their prices are ridiculously high.

What I don't want to see is content taken out from the game before launch and sold as DLC or intentionally stuffing up in game economy so you are forced to buy credit packs unless you want to grind 24/7. That's the kind of MTs that I feel have no place in gaming.

And I doubt big companies like EA or PD will get in trouble financially even without MTs. If they make a completely horrendous game maybe, but then that serves as a wake up call to up their game (no pun intended). It's harsh, but that's the only way we would see innovation where the best survives instead of the current practice of using consumers' gullibility to meet revenue targets despite churning out sub-par games year after year.

I get what you're trying to say, development costs have to come from somewhere for sure. But I just refuse to believe that the current practice of MT is right. Putting aside economic feasibility and all that, and boil it down to just principles. Can you really say that you agree with MTs?

I just wish there's a better solution that doesn't involve taking advantage of consumers. I know it's hard, but there's got to be something better than the current system 💡

 

[Liquid]

Valve does micro transactions well in games like Dota and TF2.

Not exactly Valve but same goes for Train Simulator 2014 and its DLC via Steam. I wouldn't call it 'cheap', but the depth, breadth and quality of the add-ons available for the game are certainly worth it.

And of course, you're not forced to buy anything. You are encouraged and incentivised to buy things, just like you are with pretty much anything with advertisements and marketing.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

That's the problem though. You are not forced, but other people still buys them, so companies think it's okay to keep doing it. Unless everyone stops buying them (which is impossible) it will just get worse as the costs of development continue to increase in the future. In the end you miss out on content and/or are forced to grind mindless hours. It just ruins the experience.

 

[niky]

What I don't want to see is content taken out from the game before launch and sold as DLC or intentionally stuffing up in game economy so you are forced to buy credit packs unless you want to grind 24/7. That's the kind of MTs that I feel have no place in gaming.

Would need an example of the former. And if it's the latter, that's just poor game design. Just don't play (I play FTP games and simply drop them for something else when they get to the point where you need to spend to win).

And I doubt big companies like EA or PD will get in trouble financially even without MTs. If they make a completely horrendous game maybe, but then that serves as a wake up call to up their game (no pun intended). It's harsh, but that's the only way we would see innovation where the best survives instead of the current practice of using consumers' gullibility to meet revenue targets despite churning out sub-par games year after year.

Define sub-par. A game that thrives on Microtransactions still has to be addictive. People will happily, blissfully spend absurd amounts of money on a video game... but only if they enjoy playing it, in the first place.

Also... of course they won't get in trouble. They will simply omit content that they would have sold as DLC. Programming time is money. And it's stupid to spend it for no returns.

If those returns are in the form of good press... and are sponsored by advertisers (Gran Turismo's Vision GT DLC, for example), all well and good. If you can get good press and charge for it (Forza's Jalopnik packs)... even better!

I can see where you're coming from, but I just refuse to believe that the current practice of MT is right. Putting aside economic feasibility and all that, and boil it down to just principles. Can you really say that you agree with MTs?

Do we agree that people have a right to receive just compensation for services offered? Of course they do.

Whether you like it or not, a successful company will use every tool at its disposal to make money. That's what companies are for. A company that doesn't make money is one that screws over its investors. After which, the investors will put their money into something else.

I just wish there's a better solution that doesn't involve taking advantage of consumers. It's hard I know, but there's got to be something better than the current system.

Kickstarter. Have the clients be the producers.

Of course, that way, you can get screwed over without ever receiving the game at all.

Games companies exist for one thing. Not to make games... but to make money. If you make great games that cost too much to make and which you don't charge enough for, then you're not making money. If you make terrible games that cost pennies to make and spend a fortune on marketing and microtransaction development... you will make money in the short term, but the players will leave for something better right quick.

Much as we like to pillory EA and other "greedy" developers... they do make good games. And they know how to make money off them. In other words, they please both investors and consumers.

Don't like it... buy something else. There are a lot of start-ups that could use a buck or two. And then there are the PC games with fan-created content and mods... all available for free, because these are people who don't care about the cost of programming time.

Or you could be like me... I simply don't buy. Not unless something really catches my fancy with a good demo and polished gameplay.

 

[Liquid]

That's the problem though. You are not forced, but other people still buys them, so companies think it's okay to keep doing it.

I simply fail to see the problem.

The world is not, and never will be, tailored to my demands or any one person's demands. It is generally tailored to market tastes according to majority purchase histories.

If people are 'stupid' enough to hand over their money for this kind of thing, more power to them.

 

[Imari]

Can you really say that you agree with MTs?

Yes, I can and I do. Microtransactions are a great idea when done correctly.

I take issue with poorly designed implementations of microtransactions (which are far more common than they should be), but I have nothing against the idea as a general concept. I do not think that microtransactions are fundamentally flawed, they are a tool that game developers can use or misuse as they choose. Just like pretty much everything else.

I don't mind paying $20 extra on $80 sticker price if that means all content is included at launch, instead of paying another $50 on DLCs down the line that are just content being held back.

So your answer to microtransactions is to replace them with inflated shelf prices.

Hey, look! They already did that. They're generally called either Limited Editions (when those come with extra content, sometimes they're just a shiny box which is entirely a rip off), or Season Passes (pay up front to receive all DLC for cheap).

Any developer who isn't offering a Season Pass or similar is practising bad design. Again, something I don't agree with. But the fact is that Season Passes or equivalent allow people like you to pay up front (with a discount over buying everything separately) as well as allowing people who just want a cheap base game to buy that. Win/win.

So what's your problem? Do you have specific games that aren't meeting your needs, or is this just generic ranting?

 

[Famine]

Folks, just so you know... "microtransactions" refers very specifically to the exchange of real currency for an in-game currency. Buying different colours for your cars, weapons upgrades or access to otherwise locked areas of games is just plain old DLC.

There's some confusion because "micropayments" (small sums - I think PayPal defines it as under $12) are used for paid DLC.

 

[Pupik]

If people are 'stupid' enough to hand over their money for this kind of thing, more power to them.

Of course, we also live in societies which think the phrase "bad press is better than no press at all" is a welcome concept, and the lemming masses jump.

This is why I've turned my back towards today's gaming.

 

[Fryto]

It seems like MT have finally attracted the attention of the Belgian government, after a kid inadvertently spent €37K on in-game gold on a so called 'free game'. They now will look into implementing a very strict legislation regarding practices like that. My hope is still that at some point this game ruining format gets banned altogether, but that will never happen I suppose...

 

[LeGeNd-1]

I just realized the wording of the poll is ambiguous. I picked "I agree" because I agree with the thread title. But it can be interpreted as I agree with MTs if you just look at the poll. I wonder how many confused votes are there.

Would need an example of the former. And if it's the latter, that's just poor game design. Just don't play (I play FTP games and simply drop them for something else when they get to the point where you need to spend to win).

Define sub-par. A game that thrives on Microtransactions still has to be addictive. People will happily, blissfully spend absurd amounts of money on a video game... but only if they enjoy playing it, in the first place.

Also... of course they won't get in trouble. They will simply omit content that they would have sold as DLC. Programming time is money. And it's stupid to spend it for no returns.

If those returns are in the form of good press... and are sponsored by advertisers (Gran Turismo's Vision GT DLC, for example), all well and good. If you can get good press and charge for it (Forza's Jalopnik packs)... even better!

Do we agree that people have a right to receive just compensation for services offered? Of course they do.

Whether you like it or not, a successful company will use every tool at its disposal to make money. That's what companies are for. A company that doesn't make money is one that screws over its investors. After which, the investors will put their money into something else.

Kickstarter. Have the clients be the producers.

Of course, that way, you can get screwed over without ever receiving the game at all.

Games companies exist for one thing. Not to make games... but to make money. If you make great games that cost too much to make and which you don't charge enough for, then you're not making money. If you make terrible games that cost pennies to make and spend a fortune on marketing and microtransaction development... you will make money in the short term, but the players will leave for something better right quick.

Much as we like to pillory EA and other "greedy" developers... they do make good games. And they know how to make money off them. In other words, they please both investors and consumers.

Don't like it... buy something else. There are a lot of start-ups that could use a buck or two. And then there are the PC games with fan-created content and mods... all available for free, because these are people who don't care about the cost of programming time.

Or you could be like me... I simply don't buy. Not unless something really catches my fancy with a good demo and polished gameplay.

Grid 2 had a couple of cars and tracks sold as DLC that were in various other Codemasters game before. Grid Autosport was even worse. 90% of their DLC content is merely recycled assets from past Grid1/2, F1 and Dirt games. NFS Most Wanted 2012 also had cars in pre-release pictures that are not in the game from release, and end up as DLC.

All of these are examples where content that were ready at release were being held back so they can be sold separately as DLC later on.

I agree that people deserve to be paid for their work, but equally consumers deserve to pay an amount proportional to the work done (plus tax and a small profit, just to be pedantic). In the above cases no extra work has been done so they should not have been paid DLCs.

And yes sadly greediness does trump honesty in today's world. That's why I'm not buying anymore product from companies that have these kinds of tactics in the past.

I simply fail to see the problem.

The world is not, and never will be, tailored to my demands or any one person's demands. It is generally tailored to market tastes according to majority purchase histories.

If people are 'stupid' enough to hand over their money for this kind of thing, more power to them.

I agree. That doesn't mean you can't raise your voice to try and make a change. Or voting with you wallet in this case. Who knows how effective that will be over the long term, but with the way the industry is going I'm not optimistic.

Yes, I can and I do. Microtransactions are a great idea when done correctly.

I take issue with poorly designed implementations of microtransactions (which are far more common than they should be), but I have nothing against the idea as a general concept. I do not think that microtransactions are fundamentally flawed, they are a tool that game developers can use or misuse as they choose. Just like pretty much everything else.

So your answer to microtransactions is to replace them with inflated shelf prices.

Hey, look! They already did that. They're generally called either Limited Editions (when those come with extra content, sometimes they're just a shiny box which is entirely a rip off), or Season Passes (pay up front to receive all DLC for cheap).

Any developer who isn't offering a Season Pass or similar is practising bad design. Again, something I don't agree with. But the fact is that Season Passes or equivalent allow people like you to pay up front (with a discount over buying everything separately) as well as allowing people who just want a cheap base game to buy that. Win/win.

So what's your problem? Do you have specific games that aren't meeting your needs, or is this just generic ranting?

Ok, we both agree on that first paragraph. I have no problem when MTs offer great content. I just find it sad when they are misused. I think your approach is pretty indifferent when they are misused. That I cannot wrap my head around. Maybe I'll get there with time and maturity.

The Season Pass issue is pretty similar. I have no problem when they offer new content (like Drive Club). But in Grid Autosport they offered a Season Pass when they KNOW that 90% of their DLC contents will be recycled assets from previous games (that could potentially be put on the disc at release at no extra development cost). That's the kind of things I'm against. Drive Club SP is good design. GAS SP is just a hack job to make up for their lacklustre Grid 2 sales.

Folks, just so you know... "microtransactions" refers very specifically to the exchange of real currency for an in-game currency. Buying different colours for your cars, weapons upgrades or access to otherwise locked areas of games is just plain old DLC.

There's some confusion because "micropayments" (small sums - I think PayPal defines it as under $12) are used for paid DLC.

I am not aware of that distinction. I always thought any purchases under a certain amount qualify as microtransaction, no matter what they content actually is. Thank you for clarifying 👍

I think we're using that term loosely in this thread though. So for all intents and purposes, microtransactions = micropayments (in this thread at least).

Of course, we also live in societies which think the phrase "bad press is better than no press at all" is a welcome concept, and the lemming masses jump.

This is why I've turned my back towards today's gaming.

Also true sadly.

I mean, just read this post from Codemasters: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121165342&postcount=774

Apologies, but at the time I made that post our DLC schedule hadn't been locked down and once it had I'd completely forgot I even made the comment (I do comment a lot across the Internet so losing track isn't totally unheard of).

I'm confident that the mini-expansions we've got are more along the lines of the sort of DLC people want / expect to see, and they are genuinely a good experience with lots of hours of content in there. The Classic Touring Car Pack is great and some of the cars we've got in there are great to see in our games again. However, I appreciate you don't want to hear that at this time.

Regarding the boost pack we did similar with GRID 2 as a car unlock, we got a bit of flak from that but in all honesty and without any PR bull ****...it sells. There is a silent subset of players that do like that sort of content but whether or not it's here to stay is something the industry is yet to work out.

I can't really say anything else, the only response I have for you is the total truth. I don't want to spin it or anything like that. I'll probably regret this post in the morning, but hey-ho

Under no circumstances did we make the game a grind on purpose (that much I can promise you), in the grand scheme of things it's still relatively easy to progress via single player and online it's not that difficult to earn money.

Especially with RaceNet challenges that have a significant weekly pay out. We're also improving repair costs so the 'grind' becomes less of a factor.

(I give them credit for being honest, but it's still a joke the state the industry is in)

 

[Imari]

I think your approach is pretty indifferent when they are misused. That I cannot wrap my head around. Maybe I'll get there with time and maturity.

What should I be doing, kicking and screaming? If I thought it would accomplish anything, I would.

Either the developers don't understand how to do microtransactions correctly, or they're "misusing" them intentionally.

If they don't understand, some bloke on the internet explaining it to them isn't going to help much. If they haven't got it by now, there's little hope. Microtransactions aren't really a new thing.

You can point out bad design, but usually the reason for bad design isn't simply that they haven't heard of the better way to do it. Either they think their way is best, or they're just not intelligent enough to see why another way would be superior. You might get through to them, but your time is probably better spent buying a lottery ticket.

If they're misusing them intentionally, I doubt they care what anyone thinks. They've already steeled themselves to weather the storm of criticism with thoughts of fast cars, cocaine, hookers, and paddling pools full of penny candies.

My approach remains to buy the things that represent value to me, not buy the ones that don't, and hope that the market sorts out the rest. Money is the language all developers understand, and remains the best way of communicating.

Honestly, I've got enough old racing games that I haven't even started playing to last me from now until Judgement Day. Not buying a few games isn't going to put much of a cramp in my style. If you haven't got a cheap gaming PC and Steam, put it on your list. You'll get more racing per dollar out of that than anything else.


You'll likely be perplexed to know that I bought Grid: Autosport AND the Season Pass. However, I got both on discount, and they're both new content to me as I never bought (and never will buy) Grid 2. I have issues if they're going to make me pay for the same thing twice, but I have no problem paying them for it the first time.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

I've got nothing more to add to that. Finally we agreed

And yes probably I should consider PC gaming. Consoles have become too limiting and with hindsight that's probably why I have been feeling that devs need to cater to my needs so much. Only problem is GT is not multiplatform. Oh well, we'll see what the future holds 👍

 

[FoRiZon]

Okay, stop shaming you guys.

Like some said, paying MT for say DOTA, etc are maybe justified since theyre consists on struggling and hard working devs.

But when you have to paid, say, $100 (More than twice than a full retail games) for just two cars or few customization in F2P or the game shove its MT endlessly or make the game literally unplayable continuously, you know you're in trouble.

 

[Joel]

Like some said, paying MT for say DOTA, etc are maybe justified since theyre consists on struggling and hard working devs.

They're entirely optional and give zero gameplay benefits. Also don't really know that Valve is struggling

I still don't get the talk about morality, the words "justified", "corrupt", they're way too out there for a discussion about video games. If you think you get good value from the DLC or microtransactions then buy them. If you don't, don't. If you're genuinely feeling betrayed by the way a game handles DLC then stop supporting that business model.

But when you have to paid, say, $100 (More than twice than a full retail games) for just two cars or few customization in F2P or the game shove its MT endlessly or make the game literally unplayable continuously, you know you're in trouble.

Care to give examples of this?

 

[FoRiZon]

I illiterate this thread because this business model has victims now. Notably Konami now shot Kojima down for their Mobile microtransaction approach. I really hope that these trainwreck of gaming isnt be our future.

Not to mention the "creativity" of mobile gaming. Clash of Clans, Clash of Gods, Clash of Kings. So much creativity. Thank god we has games like Splatoon et cetera.

Article addition:
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1762-5-reasons-i-lost-249000-iphone-game.html

 

[DK]

You might want to add a language warning for that article.

Speaking of microtransactions, guess who's gone down that route?

 

[FoRiZon]

You might want to add a language warning for that article.

Speaking of microtransactions, guess who's gone down that route?

Its a game carried from the store version of W8/8.1.

Its Microsoft fault for not removing it since it would be integral to the W10. But so far Microsoft is safe.

EA, Ubisoft, Mobile Devs, etc on the other hand....

 

[FoRiZon]

Proof that Microtransactions not only breaks customers wallet, but also breaks game company culture, LITERALLY.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-08-03-new-article-on-konami-paints-a-bleak-picture

RIP Kojima.

 

[Joel]

If you don't like a company's practices, stop buying their games. Simple as.

 

[FoRiZon]

If you don't like a company's practices, stop buying their games. Simple as.

Yup. Thats exactly what im going to do.

Well im going to buy MGS5 still but thats only because its Kojimas last leg. I promise not to buy until this mess cleaned up.

 

[Blitz24]

Proof that Microtransactions not only breaks customers wallet, but also breaks game company culture, LITERALLY.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-08-03-new-article-on-konami-paints-a-bleak-picture

RIP Kojima.

The article you are using here more points to a change in Konami's outlook. Whether or not following an economic decision is considered "corrupt" is debatable.

 

[FoRiZon]

The article you are using here more points to a change in Konami's outlook. Whether or not following an economic decision is considered "corrupt" is debatable.

Not economically corrupt. But the company culture and ethics, however, is.

This isnt how to treat employees.

 

[Blitz24]

Not economically corrupt. But the company culture and ethics, however, is.

This isnt how to treat employees.

Konami is running as a business. I can't see how this breaks ethics.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

We can blame mobile gaming for the appearance of IGPs. Intially an alternative to playing the game if you need a boost, today it is nearly a nesessity if you don't have the time, let alone patience, to get more virtual items.

 

[Pseudopod]

I hate microtransactions, but really, calling it corruption is a gross misunderstanding of what corruption actually is.

 

[Com Fox]

I'm a mix bag with MT. (not talking about DLC)

They can be done well and amazingly, but we rarely see any of it done correctly.

MT should be for convinence. Like more garage space in a F.T.P car racer, or quicker Experience/Money gains. Not giving paying players exclusive rights or (and most definitely) Power. Making MT for Power is just Pay to Win.

Pokemon Shuffle is probably the worst thing I ever played, 5 matches every 2.5 Hours and to even catch some of those rare Pokemon, you need A LOT of money to buy those Great Balls, how do you get them? Buy Paying, and now Pokemon Rumble is joining the FTP route, filled with unreasonable MT. I'm more sad with Rumble as I think they have made the best Pokemon Spin-offs in the past.