Microtransactions: Love Them or Hate Them?

[Jsimenhoff]

It's well known that everyone hates microtransactions. It makes all of us gamers a little sore having to pay an extra $5 here and there for content we believe is justifiably ours. On the other hand, games have stayed at $60 for many years now, and this is inspite of ballooning development costs and inflation.

So, which would you rather? Have a $70 or $80 game, but not microtransactions or keep the status quo?

 

[Graybush]

I think that's heavily dependant on the developer's overall gaming philosophy. For example, when CDPR released Witcher 3 it retailed at ~60 USD, but as far as I remembered there were no micro-transactions in the base game or in the DLC.

 

[SoggyTissue]

anything that costs money after the base game i claim to be a transaction, including dlc's + expansions.

the only justification to micro transactions would be if the base game was dirt cheap or free .... then you can understand the need to recover the investment.
for example starcraft vs starcraft 2 .... original starcraft had all the campaigns .... starcraft 2 made you pay for each ... sorry, if im buying a game, its gonna be complete, not a 'lord of the rings' bs.

rant over. lol

 

[g-unit1111]

I am not a fan of in app purchases. I feel like it's the gaming equivalent of the bag check fee - it's a totally unnecessary way to nickle and dime you to death. I don't mind expansion packs for games because those add content. But if you're expecting me to pay $50 for power ups just to advance to the next level, my answer to that is something that would be forbidden to say by the TOS.

 

[JoeMomma]

Rocket League is the only game I own that does microtransactions right.

First of all the game is inexpensive enough that I don't mind them asking for a little more.
Second the microtransactions are purely for visual items that have no effect on game play or winning.
Third the microtransactions are very cheap ($2 usually).
Forth and most important, One can turn them off and never see them.

On the other hand I see players with cool cars or skins and I think -
"Ooooo... I want that, but I would have to turn on the Loot Crates to get it. No Thanks."
I see nothing wrong with those kinds of subtle reminders (ads) that microtransactions are available if you want them.

 

[RCFProd]

Game companies wouldn't be interested in pricing games higher and removing microtransactions in the first place.

Firstly, prices would look less appealing for mass constumers who aren't even aware of what microtransactions are.

Also, game companies would have to settle for a price, when ultimately the intention of microtransactions are to make as much money as possible.

The problem in my opinion aren't even that much in DLC's. It's things like coins in FIFA Ultimate Team which people spend hundreds of euro's on each year. Now we've got loot boxes trending. This just breaches the limit of what microtransactions should do in triple AAA games.

And by the way, we already have 70-100 euro games, they're called Deluxe and Ultimate editions of games.

 

[gonzotgreat23]

So long as I can complete the game I paid for without the micro transactions, I don't mind them. DLC and expansion packs are different than having to pay for a quest for different party characters. Civilization has $10 expansions that add new things to the game.

Too many people think that once they buy a game that the company should keep working on it for as long as the game still interests them, and that any work that comes out after should be free. Small transactions that add to the game are how long term support for a game keeps getting done.

 

[Sveg]

In my opinion the reason is more economic. Games are not the only thing stuck at a price point the past few years.
The average household income has been stuck in place since 2003 which was a small gain only between 90's-03.

If you take into account the bottom 4 lines in the graph is the majority of the video game consumer by far.
You can then understand why users are reluctant to pay more.

Consider also in 1990 games were 30$ and 40$. By 2000 50$, and in 2005 (because of a small gain) around 60$.
If we could see a gain like we did between 90-03, you would find the consumer willing to pay more with more in their
pocket.

Micro transactions in a small form factor amount (2 or 3 at most per game) bother only a slight few.
But large costly chunks, or never ending (nickel and dime) transactions turned players and parents alike off BIG time. To the point of either avoiding these game all together, or playing them and not purchasing the extra content.

The entire ordeal has left a bad taste. And once the system switches over from owning content too only renting it off of a streaming server, you'll see another big backlash/pushback from the consumer.
We'll either have another large wave of pirating, or users may even walk away altogether in search of new forms of entertainment.

 

[Gam3r01]

I had no problems with micro transactions in games like Planetside 2.
Its free, but I happily spent 40-60 bucks on it over the years, I probably would have paid that much for the game anyway.

The reason I liked it was because you could spend the money to make certain things faster (I personally used it sometimes to upgrade my tank and get some camos that actually helped, not those awful ones that make you stand out).
I most certainly could have unlocked all the same stuff with a heavy weekend of play, but it allowed me to skip that grind in favor of having fun while grinding for something else.

Games that cost money and have transactions make me upset. I get the concept, its a great money maker and I cant blame them. But such useless things as crates/cases/loot drops are just plain boring and a thinly disguised money grab (but it works, and it keeps the devs going, I just wont partake). Or things like Diablo 3 and Rainbow Six, having to buy more playable characters? I think not.

 

[g-unit1111]

Micro transactions in a small form factor amount (2 or 3 at most per game) bother only a slight few.
But large costly chunks, or never ending (nickel and dime) transactions turned players and parents alike off BIG time. To the point of either avoiding these game all together, or playing them and not purchasing the extra content.

I think the main reason why I'm so turned off by the idea of microtransactions is because they don't target the parents who pay for the games. They target kids. And maybe this is just a recent problem that started in the last few years. But I can't tell you how many horror stories I've read where I've seen some kid download an iPad game and start playing it and the next thing the dad is on the news because his credit card has been charged $4,000 - $5,000+ because of the in game transactions. That's at least what turns me off about this stuff. If there's anything I don't want to be in the news for, it's because my credit cards were maxed out due to an iPad game.

 

[Kopseer]

They do not belong in full priced games on PC, especially not in single player focused games.

 

[ssddx]

as far as microtransations are concerned, it depends on the specifics and whether or not it is abused or just used as supplementary income.

the types of microtransations i support are reasonably priced costumes or decorative gear and effects, character name/customization changes, pets, inventory unlocks (as long as you can unlock inventory normally also) and other non-balance changing items.

the types of microtransations i do not support are any games which charge ridiculous prices for items ($20 costumes, $200 to unlock all inventory slots, etc), items that break the game or are pay to win, needing transactions just to play the game normally or other unfair uses of the system.

as far as paying for dlc.. as long as the game was complete upon release and the dlc is not added right after as a way to sucker money from customers i have no problems with fairly priced add ons.

i've had no problem buying various reasonably priced dlc or in game store items over the years but am disgusted by developers who get far too greedy.

 

[g-unit1111]

the types of microtransations i do not support are any games which charge ridiculous prices for items ($20 costumes, $200 to unlock all inventory slots, etc), items that break the game or are pay to win, needing transactions just to play the game normally or other unfair uses of the system.

GTA V is a big offender of that. I would like to try the online component but paying $99 for $3 million of in game currency is an absolute no.

 

[USAFRet]

From the initial purchase price, the game should be 100% playable, all the way through.

You want a different uniform for your dude? Sure...pay for it.
But that should have no influence on gameplay.

Pay extra to win?
That's a game that I delete.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Guy who came up with this topic must be really smart, and good looking

Anyway I don't mind microtransactions for cosmetic items and things of that nature. Extra characters being DLC aren't so bad as long as most of them come with the game. Gundam Versus is a good example, game comes with 90 mobile suits to play with, they released 6 as DLC, and will add a few more DLC ones in the future. None of the DLC suits have a competitive advantage, over any other one they fit right into the game's framework, and clearly most of the game comes right in the box.

What I hate is microtransactions for stuff like loot boxes, gold, or other enhancements that either make the game easier, or give an advantage in multiplayer. On top of that if you have for example a racing game, and half the cars are behind a pay wall, thats just wrong. Charge me the extra 10 bucks and give me the whole game.

DLC should either be cheap and a very minor enhancement (like cosmetic), or extensive and in ADDITION to the game, you shouldn't feel like a part of the game is missing without it. It should be a continuation. If they can't afford to do that, then just charge more already and be done with it.