Micro-transactions and what it means to you

[sukeban]

@Vagrant

 

I'll definitely grant that to a certain extent playing games/taking in other entertainment as a means of recreation is important, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's on par with medicines and such--though I know you weren't intending to strictly equate the two. I still would say that it is economically unwise to spend an inordinate amount of one's income of such things when they could be using it for other, more productive things like savings or education. But then again, if people in general behaved like that, the American economy would be pretty nonexistent mwaha.

 

Anyway, just going to say that I--in principle--don't have a problem paying more than 60 dollars for a QUALITY videogame. I am talking about Morrowind, New Vegas, Baldurs Gate II, Dragon Age: Origins, Skyrim and such here, and not "disposable" games like Call of Duty, sports, or racing games. Thinking about Skyrim and the hours that I've wrung out of it playing and modding, it's probably one of the best entertainment "investments" I can think of (then again, I probably could have taught myself a new language given the same amount of time...). So I don't think that 60$ need be any sort of arbitrary price-point for a AAA game. However, I suppose the problem is that every game company thinks that they're making a AAA game and that they'll all just glom on to the newest price-point once it is introduced. But perhaps the market wouldn't bear a 100$ FIFA 2014 yet it would bear a 100$ TES VI. If that extra 40$ translated into decreased development time, greater depth, and more features (wishful thinking), I would pay that 100$ and more. I would be perfectly fine with "liberating" games from the 60$ price-point if it meant studios were truly able to take franchises "to the next level" with creativity, art direction, writing, programming, and QA.

 

Likely, that'd take some sort of a re-dedication of game companies to their art--a commitment to actually invest those increased prices into actual product development rather than merely pocketing them as profits "because they can." But that takes determination from buyers to actually punish offending firms, something that is unlikely given the diminution of the median game buyer's expectations due to the rise of casual gamers.

 

TLDR: I'm fine with paying a large premium for truly creative and inspired content, whether in the form of DLC and/or on launch-day prices. Perhaps higher prices for better quality content could serve as the impetus for lifting gaming from its current creative plateau?

Edited January 29, 2013 by sukeban

[Vagrant0]

@Vagrant

 

I'll definitely grant that to a certain extent playing games/taking in other entertainment as a means of recreation is important, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's on par with medicines and such--though I know you weren't intending to strictly equate the two. I still would say that it is economically unwise to spend an inordinate amount of one's income of such things when they could be using it for other, more productive things like savings or education. But then again, if people in general behaved like that, the American economy would be pretty nonexistent mwaha.

The thing is, even in the case of more extreme in-game purchases (Entropia Universe, et. al.) the majority of the money going to these purchases is whatever people have in expendable income. Only in rare situations do you have people deciding if they want to eat that day or have their in-game avatar outfitted with specially dyed clothing. And yeah, in these later cases, it is something to be concerned about.

 

In the middle though, you just have working people who just want something else to occupy their mind with, and usually aren't in any particular position to invest in more education, or other utilitarian outlets. Sure, if they horded all their money away, they might eventually have enough to pay for something beneficial, but until then they would probably be bored and just turn to free internet porn (and the subsequent downward spiral that follows) and possibly be in an even worse place.

 

But, looking at a game like Project Entropia, or arguably even Second Life, both of these worlds didn't really get where they are by leaving users with an empty experience for the amount of money spent.

[Gracinfields]

Last time I played Battlefield 3 I don't remember seeing pay to win, it was play to play, as most of the guns are side grades and easy to obtain just from playing. I had all the guns by the end of my second week. If your talking about the short cuts that didn't come in till months later after most player already had the guns unlocked. If your talking the DLCs when have you not payed for a map pack that add anything cool to it, either some intresting weapons or new vehicles that only apply to those maps.

 

As for Mass Effect 3 it so easy to get gear there and paying for those packs are pretty much saying "I toss money in a fire just to watch it burn." I honestly don't think it could even be called pay to win.

 

I do understand a lot of Korean MMOs are that way and are an utter pain in the rear. So I can see why people complain there.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Gracinfields

[Vagrant0]

EA's claim to shame is not really in a pay-to-win mechanic. Their problem is in purposely withholding game content just to sell off later in the form of day 1 DLC. Or in the case of The Sims 3, making people spend between $.50 and $2.00 for furniture and other doodads to be able to use them in the game, in some cases being pretty much the only way to get any variety in some object classes sans mods. For as much money as some people have put into that game, they could have bought some real-life furniture or appliances.

[Gracinfields]

EA's claim to shame is not really in a pay-to-win mechanic. Their problem is in purposely withholding game content just to sell off later in the form of day 1 DLC. Or in the case of The Sims 3, making people spend between $.50 and $2.00 for furniture and other doodads to be able to use them in the game, in some cases being pretty much the only way to get any variety in some object classes sans mods. For as much money as some people have put into that game, they could have bought some real-life furniture or appliances.

 

Ok the sims not the others mentioned. But here is what I have to ask, are those pieces that you have to pay money for are they on the disk or some sort of micro downloadable content? I do know I have heard of a couple games that have a premium items shop which modders create new models and textures then sell via the shop. So could this be what Sims have done? As for Day 1 DLC out of all the DLC they put out on day 1 the only one that was pay for was the From Ashes DLC for ME3 (though I got that for free via the Collectors edition) .

[Vagrant0]

EA's claim to shame is not really in a pay-to-win mechanic. Their problem is in purposely withholding game content just to sell off later in the form of day 1 DLC. Or in the case of The Sims 3, making people spend between $.50 and $2.00 for furniture and other doodads to be able to use them in the game, in some cases being pretty much the only way to get any variety in some object classes sans mods. For as much money as some people have put into that game, they could have bought some real-life furniture or appliances.

 

Ok the sims not the others mentioned. But here is what I have to ask, are those pieces that you have to pay money for are they on the disk or some sort of micro downloadable content? I do know I have heard of a couple games that have a premium items shop which modders create new models and textures then sell via the shop. So could this be what Sims have done? As for Day 1 DLC out of all the DLC they put out on day 1 the only one that was pay for was the From Ashes DLC for ME3 (though I got that for free via the Collectors edition) .

DA had a few Day 1 DLC, so did a few other games that fail to come to mind.

 

As for the Sims, no, that data isn't on the game disk although the game is older and this may have changed with the expansions. A good portion of this content was available on day 1, and there are some obvious gaps in content without them. But when you also consider $15 content packs with only a few items, and other stuff, it's clear that they're just trying to milk the community for every cent they can get.

[Thor.]

I'm not a fan of micro transactions, especially the ones that don't give in return. The one type of dlc i like the most is borderlands 2, its the true form of dlc and every developer should fallow suit, because it works.

 

they make the largest dlc of its kind. and rake in the $.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Thor.

[Gracinfields]

Well DA:Os day 1 DLC was suppose to be only the Stone Prisoner DLC which was free but due to the games delay release the game dropped when Wardens Keep was due out. Something that was suppose to come with the Digital Collectors edition anyway.