Microtransactions: the Future of Games? (LootBoxes and Gambling)

Warcraft III was also released in 2002 (I remember "fondly" what happens when you release an RTS right between AOM and WC3)... how many PC RTSes have been published since then? Possibly 50, of which certainly more than 10 good ones. Can you point at other RTS mod success stories? I think everything is disproportionately skewed towards WC3 mods.

Releasing a sequel every year gives more than enough time for modders - you don't need more than a couple of months to get familiar with the game enough to make mods, much less maps. (The very deep gameplay/ballance aspects of games like SC and WC3 that are still unexplored fully after, say, a year, are a different type of knowledge, not the same type of "knowing the game" you need to make something like DOTA.)

You did pay lip service to the "the industry is straggled by a few huge players" mantra earlier in the thread, yet with the above words you seem to favor a model where there is something like one major RTS in the world, and new versions are released once in every Blizzard aeon. Do you really think a small developers stands a chance if they release one game in five years?

Look back at the history of modding and map making, it's nearly always been towards the one giant in each gametype. WC3 for the last 5 years in the RTS realm. I don't know a single series in history that's had great mod/map support that releases a sequel nearly every year. How is 1 million users (constant, ones who played near daily? Doubtful, maybe 1/10 of that) spread across 4 games good? It's not. You have people who never move on, people who do move on. People wanting to make maps that don't, those who want to make maps who do, etc, etc. You fragmented your market like crazy. Expansions after a year isn't so bad as long as the non-expansion and expansion players can still play together in some ways unless you've sold a massive amount.

Modding is not the answer to "microtransactions" in their current state on consoles. Modding will never really be the answer to it at all. However, in the current place that microtransactions are at is no longer how they started out. In the past (and currently in nearly all non-console cases) it was an alternative way to make money from the game past initial sales. Instead of subscription for your MMO you charge very little for in game items, the amount paid was small. Now though map packs and stupid non-gameplay effecting items are released for ridiculous prices. Where are the days when you got maps as part of patches? Is it really that expensive to release the maps as free to continue to spur new purchases or simply support and make your player base happy?

I don't at all believe small developers should be targeting the mod crowd in the first place. It's down right crazy to expect you'll have a healthy modding community on a very small game for the most part. A small developer should fully concentrate on making something original (most don't, most small projects are just poor knock-offs of larger games). You can't expect to get into the market with the same game. You can release a game that is similar but it must have some aspect that is new, some aspect that is accessible yet has major gameplay changing factors. It very rarely happens. Being a small developer is extremely difficult for more reasons than just you're the small guy. Though I don't at all believe support should be given to small developers simply because they're small.
 
Depends on the type of game. Yes it would be great if map making tools were standard soon on consoles. It would be much better to download user created maps than to pay for them. For things with licensed content like DDR, GH,RB user content is impossible.

All it might take is 1 great game that sells a few million units to get people on the map making bandwagon. If epic wants to really move that way on consoles I suggest they do it for Gears 2. It will show millions of people what they are missing.

You missed my point. The point is that I would like platform holders to allow options for distribution of game-cantent. Not ruthlessly squelch any attempt at it.

Problem is that would likely only happen as an act of good will. Which of course is asking alot of a corporation. Sony is almost their, but I have my doubts about the "temporary" delay of the PS3 cooker for UnrealEd. Methinks Sony may be getting cold feet....
 
At the risk of careening further off topic.

I would tend to agree tht the amount of user generated content worth playing is a very small percentage of the amount generated and that only a very small percentage of people who try to generate something manage to "ship" something.

Fact of the matter is there is Skill/artistic talent and significant work involved in building compelling game content and most people just don't have the talent or patience to do it.

Given the right filtering and decent mechanisms to classify content and I think the idea of user content is strong, but you need a massive userbase and a way to filter out the crap before it becomes interesting.
 
The backlash about all the micro transactions is heating up. It looks like a F2P game that you have to buy. That with the scant amount of content is making MS look like they are fleecing players. Why most reviewers overlooked this is suspect.
 
The backlash about all the micro transactions is heating up. It looks like a F2P game that you have to buy. That with the scant amount of content is making MS look like they are fleecing players. Why most reviewers overlooked this is suspect.

Good question, but they also overlooked it on the Sony titles too. Perhaps it's because most reviewers barely played any game longer than 3 hours and never ran into the grind or options to use microtransactions?

I certainly do not like them one damn bit, regardless of the system the game is on.
 
Out of curiosity can someone outline the titles have micro-transactions? I heard about it on Forza but what other games have these? The only game I've opened so far was Just Dance for PS4 and it has them for additional songs.
 
It's the natural evolution of DLC. Instead of hitting up customers for $20 packs, start nickel and diming them throughout the gameplay.

It was quite disgusting when BF3 had kit unlocks for purchase.

If the industry crashes, they certainly deserve it.
 
The most recent article I've seen about this is here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-23-whens-a-free-to-play-game-not-free-to-play

And it doesn't stop there. The grind of Gran Turismo already looks to be broken by the inclusion, for the first time in the series, of microtransactions in GT6, and it's a trend that's set to continue well into the next generation of games. It's one that will carry on, as well, until companies realise it's a disrespectful, dishonest practice, and until players stop supporting it by pouring money into the bottomless pit it creates. Free-to-play's not the problem, and it's a concept that will, in time, enrich the future of gaming just as it broadens its audience. Its misappropriation by cynical publishers must be stopped, though, before it turns those same people away with their shameless greed.

The other games they mention are Ryse, Crimson Dragon, FIFA Ultimate Team (last year's title), and the follow-up to Square's 3DS RPG Bravely Default.

Now the degree of which the micro-transactions make an impact are different on each game.
 
If this gets mass adopted by devs...maybe it is time to turn the back at video gaming and look for something else to enjoy.

I read in other forums (not sure if true) that the total available amount of DLC in MF5 is $1600 dollar...and this for a 60$ game.
 
For SP gaming, as long as it can be played fully and not making it more difficulty for non paying gamers, then paying for faster leveling is not really a problem from my pov. Actually I don't mind if a game have option to pay with real money for items as long as it fits the above-mentioned sentence.
For MP though, that would be a different argument. Probably needs to be looked in a case by case basis.
On Eurogamer article, until I know the whole story on each games micro transaction, I can't agree with some of their sentiment towards micro transaction. For example about GT6. What is so bad about being able to pay for cars as long as it can be played like in previous series? Of course I don't know if it can be played like that or they make it more annoying to aquire cars, which is why I reserved judgment about it until people have experienced it for a good amount of time.
 
Congratulations, turn10.

For 2,334 Tokens you can buy either a McLaren P1 or Ferrari Enzo. A Token pack costing £15.99 will cover either of those cars (you can buy packs of Tokens at the following prices: 100 is £0.79, 575 is £3.99, 1250 is £7.99, 2700 is £15.99, 8000 is £39.99 and 20,000 is £64.99), so with the 2700 Token pack that's one vehicle for £13.82. But there's much more expensive cars in Forza Motorsport 5, but the more Tokens you buy, the cheaper they are. If you bought the 20,000 pack (costing £64.99) the McLaren would cost just £7.58.

From the same pricing, a Veyron Super Sport will set you back £13.00, and the most expensive car in the game, the Lotus E21 will cost an incredible £32.50. The smaller the pack of Tokens, the more expensive they are, so the worst possible way of picking up the game's most expensive car would be to buy 100 of the 100 Token packs, bagging you the exclusive 10,000 Token Lotus E21 for a cool £79.
What sort of rates do tokens get won during gameplay? How many hours racing would be needed to earn one of these cars? If it's not lots, then they're just fleecing rich, impatient people, which I have no problem with. But if you can't realistically win these cars and flesh out your garage without spending huge amounts of wonga, then this is a travesty for gaming. I doubt, and hope, gamers won't get suckered into such crazy DLC unlike mobile gamers, but we'll see.
 
What sort of rates do tokens get won during gameplay? How many hours racing would be needed to earn one of these cars? If it's not lots, then they're just fleecing rich, impatient people, which I have no problem with. But if you can't realistically win these cars and flesh out your garage without spending huge amounts of wonga, then this is a travesty for gaming. I doubt, and hope, gamers won't get suckered into such crazy DLC unlike mobile gamers, but we'll see.

I have talked with some people at Sony (who also want to incorporate it), the idea actually came from MMORPGs like Everquest and World of Warcraft, were people would pay other people to play the game for them, or buy certain items instead of having to grind hours to get it themselves. They understood that people are willing to pay for tasks which they find tedious to do in the actual game.

Now the problem with Forza5, is that it is built like a free to play game, only you have to pay 60 euro as well. Certain items can not be obtained regularly, you apparently even have to buy tokens to start a free race. So not really a "free" race.

The bigger problem is the gaming press is mostly ignoring this. They should represent the gamers, instead of only acting like a PR channel for the big companies.
So a big thumbs up to Eurogamer for their excellent article on the subject:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-23-whens-a-free-to-play-game-not-free-to-play
 
That's the point, that won't be the case. There needs to be an incentive for the player to buy dlc/ingame money/etc so they will cut out content and make the obtainable content more difficult to obtain so players are more likely to spend a couple of bucks.

This is already happening with Forza. They've cut out a whole bunch of content that you can buy again as dlc. But before you can use that dlc you still have to actually buy it with ingame money which apparently requires quite a bit of grinding. However, you can also buy ingame money with real money.

So they now charge you for the game, content and the money needed to actually use the content you already bought. On top of that they are also breaking the game to get players to buy the content.

Personally I already had a big hatred towards most DLC. Especially DLC that unlocks content that is already on the disk or should have been there to begin with. DLC like the expansions for Fallout 3, I'm ok with that as it actually adds quite a bit of new content to the game.

All we can hope for is that gamers don't put up with this micropayment crap. I know I won't and I won't buy any games that rely on it either.
 
All of this is referred to as Freemium games, where there's micro transactions scattered throughout the game. this is prevalent on iOS. People are freaking out about nothing providing the pay walls aren't going to prevent a player from playing the game.

What is supposed to occur is that the things you can pay for are time skips or shortcuts (even cheats), so you don't have to grind to do things. They are designed for people that have more money then time.
 
That's the point, that won't be the case. There needs to be an incentive for the player to buy dlc/ingame money/etc so they will cut out content and make the obtainable content more difficult to obtain so players are more likely to spend a couple of bucks.

This is already happening with Forza. They've cut out a whole bunch of content that you can buy again as dlc. But before you can use that dlc you still have to actually buy it with ingame money which apparently requires quite a bit of grinding. However, you can also buy ingame money with real money.

So they now charge you for the game, content and the money needed to actually use the content you already bought. On top of that they are also breaking the game to get players to buy the content.

Personally I already had a big hatred towards most DLC. Especially DLC that unlocks content that is already on the disk or should have been there to begin with. DLC like the expansions for Fallout 3, I'm ok with that as it actually adds quite a bit of new content to the game.

All we can hope for is that gamers don't put up with this micropayment crap. I know I won't and I won't buy any games that rely on it either.

What I don't understand is this. Forza has always been the type of game where you have to grind to get things. Nothing previously could be skipped to get it early on all previous versions of forza. So essentially what you are saying is, you buy DLC with a bunch of new cars, but you need to use in game cash to access those cars OR you can pay with real money to skip the grind you would normally need.

The only difference between that and what we have always done, is the ability to pay to skip the grinding time. They aren't forcing players to pay for anything above the cost of the DLC. They are giving the OPTION to skip.
 
All of this is referred to as Freemium games, where there's micro transactions scattered throughout the game. this is prevalent on iOS. People are freaking out about nothing providing the pay walls aren't going to prevent a player from playing the game.

What is supposed to occur is that the things you can pay for are time skips or shortcuts (even cheats), so you don't have to grind to do things. They are designed for people that have more money then time.
That all depends on execution. I've been playing PvZ2 and I see no need to spend any money. TBH I feel a little bad as I haven't reimbursed the devs anything - I'd happily pay a few quid for this if is was on PSN. I mean to buy some in-game stuff just to give something back. But that game is well balanced in favour of the player IMO. Typical mobile games are practically impossible without spending out.

I think the best option is free to play and buy to unlock the full game, but more money can be made with DLC, and these companies are in it for the money. Only if there's a negative financial response will the change be prevented.

The only difference between that and what we have always done, is the ability to pay to skip the grinding time. They aren't forcing players to pay for anything above the cost of the DLC. They are giving the OPTION to skip.
Is the amount of grind unchanged, or has it been increased to encourage purchases? And the pricing is significant. $10 for one virtual car is a crazy amount of money compared to a $60 game with loads of cars, tracks, and everything else. The pricing is completely disproportional.
 
I have a sneaky suspicion that the agreasive way microtransactions can be found in the newer titles making there way to market is publishers and developers reply to DRM being rejected.
 
Looting gamers in broad day light ! People should voice up against this trend :mad:. Why this when we have paid $60 for anyways a game low on content ( excused for a launch game, fine) ! Someone told me you pay $50 for a season pass and the cars you get still have to be unlocked via in game credits !!! So, there's possibility of spending even after playing freaking $50 more on the same game !

This trend needs to be nipped i the bud before the malice spreads to all games. Maybe we need another united gamer campaign with those Hashtags !
 
I mean, that is exactly the point: how balanced is the approach? I have no problem in BF3 with the all-unlock-class packs. It did made fun to unlock stuff by myself, it took reasonable amount of time. No problem. Also, no problem if people just unlocked it with money.

But if Dice had decided that it should take about ten times the amount of playtime to unlock the full class equipment...I would have had the feeling that they want me to push into buying the stuff.

In BF4, I have the feeling that unlocking is even faster than BF3. So, Dice system is good and unproblematic imo.
 
Back
Top