Why I think there's such anger about "microtransactions", and why it could spawn a class-action suit

[Tafternoon]

I think there may be grounds for a class-action lawsuit regarding "inaccessible game content" for games such as Gran Turismo 6, but not based on micro-transactions.

In the 'old days' of Video Games, publishers and developers would include "cheat codes" programmed into the games themselves. You could plug them into a cheat menu, or you could do a specific combination of controller functions on certain screens to open new maps, give you new weapons, gain access to new cars, or whatever the game might require.

Today, the idea of cheat codes is very nearly dead. Some game developers do understand this concept, however, and as such they have actually created a new way to make money from the end-users' "Lack of Access" to the content they paid for. A good example would be the Need For Speed series, where there are various DLC packs that will unlock all of the cars immediately for use. Not a bad way for the publisher to make an additional ten bucks. But at least, that option is there.

The Forza game series, after the huge uproar over the introduction of microtransactions in Forza Motorsport 5, had the wisdom to "patch" the game, giving higher payouts per race, as well as significantly lowering the prices of the cars in-game. This led to the game becoming relatively easy to purchase ALL of the cars in-game, giving the end-user full access to the game's content. In addition, they made the move to allow ALL cars available in DLC packs to be purchased for use in-game FOR FREE, the first time it was purchased, which effectively gave the end-user immediate access to the content they had just purchased.

With a game like Gran Turismo 6, and even Gran Turismo 5, the sheer number of cars (standard, not including additonal DLC), multiplied by the cost of the cars, factoring in the payouts per race - it's been calculated by several people it would take YEARS - not just 1 or 2 years, but several - to gain access to all of the content in the standard version of the game. YEARS, at a rate of playing for several hours per day! The issue then becomes the lack of REASONABLE access to the content the end-user has already paid for.

Game developers will tell us that they cannot allow immediate unlocks and access to all of the content in most games, because they want to protect the integrity of the online experience.

Simple solution to a simple problem: Arrange a "full unlock/access" code to the offline/career mode of each game. If certain cars, weapons, spells, etc. are needed in the "online" area of the game, then don't allow those items to be used online, unless the end-user has met the criteria to unlock for the "online" mode, in order to protect the integrity of the online experience.

The argument against that, where the Xbox is concerned, is that PSN is essentially free for the end-user, with certain exceptions for a single-user online access license for certain games. Xbox live may have a problem arguing against use of paid-for-content online, even if it hasn't been unlocked through 'merit' - the end-users of Xbox Live must PAY for the right to access Xbox Live.

To me, the answer is simple: Find a mechanism by which to unlock ALL of the content in games for offline use, unless the "merit-based" criteria has been met to unlock items one-by-one, etc. Publishers could even charge extra for this "license". As for me, I would most certainly pay another $49.99 for the "right" to add every car in Gran Turismo 6 to my garage, free of in-game credits, for use in all "offline" modes. Not every gamer has the skills to open all of the content available in every game. There should still be an avenue available to allow them to use the content THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.

That's my .02, anyway.

 

[Famine]

That opens every game with a storyline ever to a class action lawsuit. If you don't have the skills to open later levels, you don't have access to that content. Also:

The Forza game series, after the huge uproar over the introduction of microtransactions in Forza Motorsport 5, had the wisdom to "patch" the game, giving higher payouts per race, as well as significantly lowering the prices of the cars in-game.

There's currently around 50m fewer credits required to buy all the cars in GT6 than there was in the launch version of the game, despite the increase in car count and the 1m credit Vision GTs. Payouts have also been increased by up to 170% and then doubled with the login bonus.

With a game like Gran Turismo 6, and even Gran Turismo 5, the sheer number of cars (standard, not including additonal DLC), multiplied by the cost of the cars, factoring in the payouts per race - it's been calculated by several people it would take YEARS - not just 1 or 2 years, but several - to gain access to all of the content in the standard version of the game. YEARS, at a rate of playing for several hours per day!

With the present version of the game, that's simply nonsense.

The career mode rewards you with nearly 50m credits if you do everything once - this is skewed somewhat by the one-off Senna and Sierra races, but then they keep adding them. However in one update PD put in a way to get millions of credits an hour repeatably - the Red Bull X2014 Standard series. It wouldn't surprise me if you could get every car in the game (give or take the garage/stockyard's ability to hold them) in a month or so of relatively casual play, but I'd need to do the math on it. I had to buy two of the 20m cars last week so I didn't hit the 50m credit cap and I'm still at 25m...


Incidentally, it's my opinion that every car in the game should be available in standard form for use in arcade mode and online from the start.

 

[Tafternoon]

That opens every game with a storyline ever to a class action lawsuit. If you don't have the skills to open later levels, you don't have access to that content.

You're right; and I think that's exactly why it's possible for a lawsuit. Class-action suits are NEVER about "what's right", the attorneys could care less. It's about how much $$ they can get for their own pockets. The tobacco companies had a lot of money, and they sued them....today, with tobacco waning and video games being a multi-billion dollar market - it's a cash cow for them, with a legitimate argument behind it, which would likely result in a multi-million dollar settlement and an agreement to incorporate "access" features into new games. Even it were a "lowball" settlement of, oh, say, $15 million dollars, the law firm bringing the suit would get between 30 and 50 percent of that figure.

All it takes is one law firm or overzealous attorney to see those dollar signs. They've never been about 'doing the right thing', because it's the right thing.

Thanks for the info on the Red Bull series, I was unaware of that. I will check it out.

 

[Famine]

You're right; and I think that's exactly why it's possible for a lawsuit. Class-action suits are NEVER about "what's right", the attorneys could care less. It's about how much $$ they can get for their own pockets. The tobacco companies had a lot of money, and they sued them....today, with tobacco waning and video games being a multi-billion dollar market - it's a cash cow for them, with a legitimate argument behind it, which would likely result in a multi-million dollar settlement and an agreement to incorporate "access" features into new games. Even it were a "lowball" settlement of, oh, say, $15 million dollars, the law firm bringing the suit would get between 30 and 50 percent of that figure.

All it takes is one law firm or overzealous attorney to see those dollar signs. They've never been about 'doing the right thing', because it's the right thing.

Yeah, but you're talking about every game with a storyline ever. Not just modern things like The Last of Us, Skyrim or whatever passes for a storyline in Call of Duty these days - we're talking about Super Mario Brothers, Jet Set Willy, Gauntlet, Jet Pac... Even Pac Man and Galaga...


It'd last about eight seconds in any court room.

 

[Highlandor]

Jet Pac...

One of the greatest shoot 'em ups ever 👍

 

[Imari]

It's about as sensible as complaining that you can't get on a rollercoaster halfway through the ride. Of course you can't, it's by design.

 

[VBR]

Ditch GT & go buy Project CARS when it comes out, nothing is locked in that game, everything is accessible from the start.


👍

 

[xiando]

To directly answer the titled question, micro-transactions aren't going to result in any successful class action suit. It just doesn't fly. Sony can sell game credits for any title they own with full impunity.

As to not delivering included content they advertised, that may be a different matter, but that's speculation for another thread, and honestly, it'd still be a real uphill battle, one I doubt most of us really want to engage in. What Sony and PDI may face though, is an established sense of distrust and permanently reduced sales numbers.

Ditch GT & go buy Project CARS when it comes out, nothing is locked in that game, everything is accessible from the start.
👍

Yep VBR, I'm beginning to realize that may be the way forward.

 

[SWERV_GRIFFIN]

That its when it finally comes out. Already been pushed out 6 months. Nice since I already bought a PS4. I guess for the Magical-Fix-Everything project Cars has not been so Magical for me so far. The whole delayed release seems very familiar to another game........ Hmmmmmmmm ?

 

[DolHaus]

I think there may be grounds for a class-action lawsuit regarding "inaccessible game content" for games such as Gran Turismo 6, but not based on micro-transactions.

In the 'old days' of Video Games, publishers and developers would include "cheat codes" programmed into the games themselves. You could plug them into a cheat menu, or you could do a specific combination of controller functions on certain screens to open new maps, give you new weapons, gain access to new cars, or whatever the game might require.

Today, the idea of cheat codes is very nearly dead. Some game developers do understand this concept, however, and as such they have actually created a new way to make money from the end-users' "Lack of Access" to the content they paid for. A good example would be the Need For Speed series, where there are various DLC packs that will unlock all of the cars immediately for use. Not a bad way for the publisher to make an additional ten bucks. But at least, that option is there.

The Forza game series, after the huge uproar over the introduction of microtransactions in Forza Motorsport 5, had the wisdom to "patch" the game, giving higher payouts per race, as well as significantly lowering the prices of the cars in-game. This led to the game becoming relatively easy to purchase ALL of the cars in-game, giving the end-user full access to the game's content. In addition, they made the move to allow ALL cars available in DLC packs to be purchased for use in-game FOR FREE, the first time it was purchased, which effectively gave the end-user immediate access to the content they had just purchased.

With a game like Gran Turismo 6, and even Gran Turismo 5, the sheer number of cars (standard, not including additonal DLC), multiplied by the cost of the cars, factoring in the payouts per race - it's been calculated by several people it would take YEARS - not just 1 or 2 years, but several - to gain access to all of the content in the standard version of the game. YEARS, at a rate of playing for several hours per day! The issue then becomes the lack of REASONABLE access to the content the end-user has already paid for.

Game developers will tell us that they cannot allow immediate unlocks and access to all of the content in most games, because they want to protect the integrity of the online experience.

Simple solution to a simple problem: Arrange a "full unlock/access" code to the offline/career mode of each game. If certain cars, weapons, spells, etc. are needed in the "online" area of the game, then don't allow those items to be used online, unless the end-user has met the criteria to unlock for the "online" mode, in order to protect the integrity of the online experience.

The argument against that, where the Xbox is concerned, is that PSN is essentially free for the end-user, with certain exceptions for a single-user online access license for certain games. Xbox live may have a problem arguing against use of paid-for-content online, even if it hasn't been unlocked through 'merit' - the end-users of Xbox Live must PAY for the right to access Xbox Live.

To me, the answer is simple: Find a mechanism by which to unlock ALL of the content in games for offline use, unless the "merit-based" criteria has been met to unlock items one-by-one, etc. Publishers could even charge extra for this "license". As for me, I would most certainly pay another $49.99 for the "right" to add every car in Gran Turismo 6 to my garage, free of in-game credits, for use in all "offline" modes. Not every gamer has the skills to open all of the content available in every game. There should still be an avenue available to allow them to use the content THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.

That's my .02, anyway.

A class-action suit because they don't give you everything from the start for free?

.... really?

 

[JKgo]

MTs can kiss my 🤬. The most expensive MT vouchers gives you,what, 7 mil credits? Doing a Red Bull Standard championship once with 200% log-in "bonus" nets you 2.2 mil... Do the math - will you fork out $60 for a one-time-use-only credits or just grit your teeth and spam a handful of races??
Dunno whose bright idea it was to introduce MTs but he/she can kiss my 🤬 too.
Is there a forum for removal of a feature from GT6??

 

[Jbaffoh]

Famine is right. The Redbull Std. championship pays out 8,000,000 credits per hour. A determined player could purchase every car in the game within a couple months.

As for class actions? LMAO! An unscrupulous attorney could file, but any defense attorney with half a brain would have it thrown out of court, and collect litigation costs.

How do I know this? 28 years of law practice.

 

[Peasantslayer]

Although people generally dislike microtransactions they are optional and developers give out tonnes of free DLC which they never did in the past.

 

[Imari]

Although people generally dislike microtransactions they are optional...

It depends. Sometimes they are entirely optional, and sometimes the games are intentionally difficult to play without paying, such as freemium games.

Gran Turismo is somewhere in between. It was pretty clear from the early versions of the economy that it was intended to be pretty difficult to get money. That was reduced during later patches with the introduction of high paying races such as the RB series and the introduction of the login bonus. Whether that initial difficulty of earning money was an intentional effort to push microtransactions or simply a miscalculation that was later addressed, it had the same effect early on.

 

[Peasantslayer]

It depends. Sometimes they are entirely optional, and sometimes the games are intentionally difficult to play without paying, such as freemium games.

Developers need to make their money somehow, it if isn't difficult to play with paying then they wouldn't make much.

Gran Turismo is somewhere in between. It was pretty clear from the early versions of the economy that it was intended to be pretty difficult to get money. That was reduced during later patches with the introduction of high paying races such as the RB series and the introduction of the login bonus. Whether that initial difficulty of earning money was an intentional effort to push microtransactions or simply a miscalculation that was later addressed, it had the same effect early on.

Whilst I agree GT6 is a bit of grind all GT games are like that aren't they?

 

[Imari]

Developers need to make their money somehow, it if isn't difficult to play with paying then they wouldn't make much.

For freemium games, certainly. For "normal" games like GT, I rather think that the business model should be sustainable on disc/download sales alone. Should they choose to make additional content available through DLC then that content should be priced to pay for itself as well.

Stuff like paying for credits just makes games worse, because they have to be designed to promote their purchase. I'd accept that maybe it's possible to have such a thing without making the game worse, but I've never seen it done. Until I do, I'll stick with the idea that adding in the freemium model to a game that doesn't require it to survive is strictly a downgrade, and a money grab.

Whilst I agree GT6 is a bit of grind all GT games are like that aren't they?

To a certain extent. It doesn't mean it's good game design though. Games were very different 15 years ago, and arguably GT1 is less grindy than GT6, and certainly less grindy than GT5 (the grindiest of all GTs).

From memory, none of the GTs needed significant grinding to progress in the career mode, with the exception of GT5. So what we're talking about is the level of effort required to purchase the most expensive cars.

The price for the most expensive car in GT1 was a lot less than the 20 million in GT5 and 6. To be honest, I can't be bothered going and digging out the prize structure of GT1 to compare, but I suspect that if you compared how long you'd have to grind the most efficient race in both games to earn enough money to buy the most expensive car in each one respectively, you'd spend a lot fewer hours in GT1 than GT6.

GT6 is better now with all the stuff added, but at release it was damn near 40 hours of grinding the most efficient race to earn 20 million. That's insane.

 

[DolHaus]

Unfortunately micro-transactions are the way of the future for games that are continually in development. The amount of money required for game design and development (+advertising, distribution, licensing etc.) has sky rocketed in the last few years and without doubling or even tripling the retail price there is no way to make a healthy profit without other sources of income. Hiking the retail price is a double edged sword, while you might be able to manage it if you have a solid product and a large, loyal fan base you will lose a massive share of the market in the form of the more casual gamers who aren't prepared to pay over the odds for a game they are only going to put 20hrs into before moving on to the next thing.

You've got to remember that its all business, they're not going to cut their own throats in order to give the gamers everything that they want, they're trying to strike a balance between customer satisfaction and profit and I think the way it is currently set up is the best way. The game is and its contents are wholly achievable without having to buy credits or perks, you might have to grind a bit if you want everything but there is no feature in the game that requires the use of micro-transactions.

This is the future folks, like it or hate it, its here to stay and will become the norm for all games over the next few years

 

[MeanElf]

You're right; and I think that's exactly why it's possible for a lawsuit. Class-action suits are NEVER about "what's right", the attorneys could care less. It's about how much $$ they can get for their own pockets. The tobacco companies had a lot of money, and they sued them....today, with tobacco waning and video games being a multi-billion dollar market - it's a cash cow for them, with a legitimate argument behind it, which would likely result in a multi-million dollar settlement and an agreement to incorporate "access" features into new games. Even it were a "lowball" settlement of, oh, say, $15 million dollars, the law firm bringing the suit would get between 30 and 50 percent of that figure.

All it takes is one law firm or overzealous attorney to see those dollar signs. They've never been about 'doing the right thing', because it's the right thing.

Thanks for the info on the Red Bull series, I was unaware of that. I will check it out.

So, in effect by wishing to start such an action, you would be greatly responsible for killing a lot of game development studios, dead...that is if the action is not laughed uproariously out of court, of course.

 

[Jbaffoh]

So, in effect by wishing to start such an action, you would be greatly responsible for killing a lot of game development studios, dead...that is if the action is not laughed uproariously out of court, of course.

Yes, uproariously.

A class action because you don't win all the prizes out of the box? I can see it now: Puzzle manufacturers must sell all puzzles already completed. Cracker Jack must put the prize at the top of the box so buyers don't have to eat their way to the bottom. The winners of little league baseball games must be declared before the game begins, and there can be no losers. God forbid anyone must break a sweat, employ strategy, and learn some skills to win.

All this because PD gave us the OPTION of buying credits in lieu of spending time behind the wheel. All because a few people feel compelled to buy all the cars without working for a month or two to earn them.

I've read some idiotic threads here, but this takes the cake. Oh, and the comparison to tobacco is rich.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Unfortunately micro-transactions are the way of the future for games that are continually in development. The amount of money required for game design and development (+advertising, distribution, licensing etc.) has sky rocketed in the last few years and without doubling or even tripling the retail price there is no way to make a healthy profit without other sources of income. Hiking the retail price is a double edged sword, while you might be able to manage it if you have a solid product and a large, loyal fan base you will lose a massive share of the market in the form of the more casual gamers who aren't prepared to pay over the odds for a game they are only going to put 20hrs into before moving on to the next thing.

You've got to remember that its all business, they're not going to cut their own throats in order to give the gamers everything that they want, they're trying to strike a balance between customer satisfaction and profit and I think the way it is currently set up is the best way. The game is and its contents are wholly achievable without having to buy credits or perks, you might have to grind a bit if you want everything but there is no feature in the game that requires the use of micro-transactions.

This is the future folks, like it or hate it, its here to stay and will become the norm for all games over the next few years

Doesn't have to be. How do you think they'll introduce MT's into Project Cars, a potentially ground breaking full sim racer on console/pc, when all the content is free and available at the start of the game. DLC is promised, some may be free or we may have to pay for all of it, but the base game will be feature complete and all content available without having to spend an extra penny to get to anything.

 

[DolHaus]

Doesn't have to be. How do you think they'll introduce MT's into Project Cars, a potentially ground breaking full sim racer on console/pc, when all the content is free and available at the start of the game. DLC is promised, some may be free or we may have to pay for all of it, but the base game will be feature complete and all content available without having to spend an extra penny to get to anything.

If the game doesn't have a monetary system then it won't be applicable obviously, but most games that have any level of credits or character development will offer some form of buy in system in the near future.
Its just smart business practice, why make $30 in one shot when you can potentially make $30 + a potential drip feed of small amounts of money over time?
As long as it doesn't turn into a pay to win system I'm not really bothered by the trend, some folks have more money than time and if they want to buy a big stack of credits so they can get an asset immediately thats their choice, as long as I can reach the same ends by alternate means then thats just fine.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If the game doesn't have a monetary system then it won't be applicable obviously, but most games that have any level of credits or character development will offer some form of buy in system in the near future.
Its just smart business practice, why make $30 in one shot when you can potentially make $30 + a potential drip feed of small amounts of money over time?
As long as it doesn't turn into a pay to win system I'm not really bothered by the trend, some folks have more money than time and if they want to buy a big stack of credits so they can get an asset immediately thats their choice, as long as I can reach the same ends by alternate means then thats just fine.

I'm glad it doesn't bother you and I'm sure others feel the same way, but I won't support any game where I have to either use up an exhorbitant amount of my personal time grinding for credits to gain access to game content on the release disc/DL, or use MT's to save myself from wasting time. I'll happily pay for new content, I'll buy all the DLC of any game I'm actively playing, but I won't support trading money for time in any way.

 

[Imari]

If the game doesn't have a monetary system then it won't be applicable obviously, but most games that have any level of credits or character development will offer some form of buy in system in the near future.
Its just smart business practice, why make $30 in one shot when you can potentially make $30 + a potential drip feed of small amounts of money over time?
As long as it doesn't turn into a pay to win system I'm not really bothered by the trend, some folks have more money than time and if they want to buy a big stack of credits so they can get an asset immediately thats their choice, as long as I can reach the same ends by alternate means then thats just fine.

If the in game economy is designed to give the player the maximum satisfaction from earning their items with the least amount of work possible, and then the microtransactions are added as an afterthought then I might agree.

I've never seen a game do this.

Game designers are also game players, which means that they will try and optimise everything. If their goal is to make as much money as possible, which if they're looking at putting in microtransactions then they're certainly at that end of the spectrum, then they're going to be willing to sacrifice gameplay to earn more money by making the game grindier to encourage purchases.

It's not binary, there's a spectrum, but the more greedy the company is the more it affects the game. Simply considering putting microtransactions into the game in the first place is a greedy act, so it's never really going to end well.

I'm fine with DLC, cosmetic stuff, and whatever other items that companies want to sell for real money. I think tying the in-game economy to a real world economy is ALWAYS going to result in a worse game, not because it couldn't be done right, but simply because no one who would do it right would tie the two together in the first place.

 

[Tafternoon]

Interesting....so ALL of the cars and tracks will be available to play on PROJECT CARS right out of the box? If that's true - AWESOME!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Interesting....so ALL of the cars and tracks will be available to play on PROJECT CARS right out of the box? If that's true - AWESOME!

Yes, there is no game economy. It is about racing from beginning to end featuring a full offline career, make your own races with a full race weekend if you wish, racing online, time trials etc.