Microsoft To Introduce "Consumables"

[Hardknock]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3152856

Microsoft mentioned a new kind of microtransaction at the session, as well, which they are calling "consumables." These purchases would be re-purchasable items i.e. if a game was selling 100 gold pieces, you would be able to rebuy 100 gold pieces when you needed them. The "consumables" tech will be included in this fall's release of the SDK.

This is getting way way out of hand. So not only are devs going to be more inclined to hold content and sell it for a premium later on with these "microtransactions". We'll have content that can be consumed after a certain amount of use (or time limit) in which you'll have to purchase the same content all over again if it's something you really need/liked. Ridiculous! What is this industry coming to!?

 

[Rockster]

Simple solution. Don't buy them. But a lot of what you are seeing is a reaction to consumer demand. Look at what happened with EQ when people began realizing the value of digital content. They setup shop outside the game. You can't blame Microsoft for providing tools that their developers and consumers are asking for.

 

[Hardknock]

Simple solution. Don't buy them. But a lot of what you are seeing is a reaction to consumer demand. Look at what happened with EQ when people began realizing the value of digital content. They setup shop outside the game. You can't blame Microsoft for providing tools that their developers and consumers are asking for.

Of course. Nothing wrong with voicing my opinion on the subject either.

I can't help but feel that I'm being cheated out of content that would normally be in the game if it weren't for these microtransactions! And I'm almost positive a quite a few times this is the case

 

[pc999]

Some day we will need to buy the console and then pay daily for the rights to use the console.

 

[fearsomepirate]

So gold farming is totally awesome when the publisher is making money off it. And here I thought it was about the all-holy Purity of the Game Economy (tm).

 

[AlNom]

So gold farming is totally awesome when the publisher is making money off it. And here I thought it was about the all-holy Purity of the Game Economy (tm).

Oh no no no... you missed the second part after "We want to stop people from exploiting other gamers and making money off of our game...", which is "so that we can do it instead."

 

[a688]

Oh no no no... you missed the second part after "We want to stop people from exploiting other gamers and making money off of our game...", which is "so that we can do it instead."

The developer has the ability to control the amount distributed. They could limit individuals/servers to a certain amount for a certain length of time.

 

[one]

Does anyone play item-sales-based MMORPGs? They are playable for free but if you try to 1up others you have to buy items. Apparently most Asian MMORPGs are moving to this system which has indefinitely lower entrance cost than subscription model and getting some success. Consoles can adopt this model too.

 

[StefanS]

Big question:

How many of you have actually "micro-transacted" and how much did you spend?

I am still questioning the viability of that model unless the gamer is more or less forced to use
microtransaction.

 

[pipo]

There are a lot of items in the 80-150 points range available on XBLM, and they do sell... These can be anything from picture packs and an exclusive car to a map.

Simple solution. Don't buy them.

Couldn't agree more.

Arcade games though...

 

[Chris123234]

Does anyone play item-sales-based MMORPGs? They are playable for free but if you try to 1up others you have to buy items. Apparently most Asian MMORPGs are moving to this system which has indefinitely lower entrance cost than subscription model and getting some success. Consoles can adopt this model too.

This makes me sick. You are supporting the idea of gaming competition decided not by skill and playing the game but by simply purchasing better stuff with real world money. Good job at sanctioning a horrible age in gaming. It may be ok for small asian mmorpg's to do it but not mass market gaming consoles.

 

[Inane_Dork]

Big question:

How many of you have actually "micro-transacted" and how much did you spend?

I am still questioning the viability of that model unless the gamer is more or less forced to use
microtransaction.

MS indicated at Gamerfest that a few packs of DLC grossed over $1 million. So they can/do sell provided the right impetus. I imagine that a much larger userbase will make DLC even more profitable an option.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Big question:

How many of you have actually "micro-transacted" and how much did you spend?

I am still questioning the viability of that model unless the gamer is more or less forced to use
microtransaction.

I've bought 2 add-on packs for oblivion, and a the fight night ring girls theme for my dashboard. Other than that, just a couple arcade games.

 

[Qroach]

I really don't understand why i've seen people spaz out about this over the net. Sony also talked of microtransactions in this way and most people were really excited about it. MS is just providing the hooks to allow developers to do this.

If people don't want to pay for something in a game, they won't have to. I don't think any developer would intentially block (force you to pay) from having something vital to playing a game.

 

[Bumpyride]

For my part, I've bought some equipment for pc games from these online retailers because I make a decent living and don't have the time to search for the best stuff. Should I be restricted from enjoying the game because I work long hours? I think both sides of this debate have merit, but I know I wouldn't be playing if I could only use equipment I found myself. Of course, that's only one part of this debate and I believe that the basic laws of capitalism will keep things from getting too out of hand with everything else.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I really don't understand why i've seen people spaz out about this over the net.

imo, it's a bad precedent, and bad trend that we need to stay away from.

It's easy to say 'don't buy it' but the problem is the idiot gamers out there who will buy anything, those of us who expect more for our money may be left out in the cold because the mass of casual gamers end up buying these addons.

Since publishers are extremely greed and only care about the bottom line this does worry me, that they will look at it as 'how can we squeeze the most amount of money out of these guys'

Teams like Bioware are really the shining example of how these should work, they are going to release a full game, and the between the next game release, give an add-on pack that is the result of further development after the ship date, which can be downloaded and played while we wait for the true sequal.

I love that idea, but the nickle and diming could potentially get out of hand.

 

[Arwin]

Some day we will need to buy the console and then pay daily for the rights to use the console.

If you would have to pay daily rights to use it, surely we would be dealing with a rent/use like scenario in which case you'd no longer have to buy the console - you would perhaps only have to provide a deposit. This is much like digital TV receivers and such as we have here, where you pay per month or per view, and the decoder is free but with a small deposit so that you have enough incentive to give it back to the provider afterwards.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I really don't understand why i've seen people spaz out about this over the net. Sony also talked of microtransactions in this way and most people were really excited about it. MS is just providing the hooks to allow developers to do this.

I think those 'most people' who were really excited about it were publishers

It depends what exactly you're paying for. As modules and upgrades I welcome the idea, and might well turn my hand to creating something like a NWN module if I could charge a few quid for it to fund the time needed to make a quality product. I think the actual suggestion here is something more sinister though in that it suggests rather than getting new content, you pay real money to advance yourself through the game. If you need 100 gp virtual money to advance, you buy that with $1 or whatever real money. It then gives the developers incentive to make aspects of the game frustrating or incredibly hard, and give people a way to ease their suffering by parting with some cash. Imagine you've played Halo3 for 30 hours, have got near the end, and the next 10 hours are spent in the same place getting whipped left right and centre by the Mungo Hordes. There's a special gun available for $3 that'd make your life a lot easier. Do you...

1) Persevere with the standard weapons hoping for that lucky break?
2) Give up on the game and leave the storyline incomplete?
3) Part with 3 bucks as it's only 3 bucks and you really want to finish the game?

I expect most people would do the latter as the cost is kept small, frustration is no fun, and turning your back on a story you like is very hard. This way the developers can coax even more money out of their gamers. This is in stark contrast to someone selling a module or mission pack which is extra content on top of the original game. It's also setting up a duplication of the card collection markets, where the person who wins the game is often the person who spent the most money collecting powerful ones. If when you enter the multiplayer arena you arse is handed you every time by a bunch of chumps who bought the Giga-blaster for $3, you've found yourself in a market where how much you spend is more important than how much skill you have. I'm sure no gamer wants that, except rich and bad gamers who can't win by their own abilities and would love the chance to out-buy the competition!

 

[patsu]

Big question:

How many of you have actually "micro-transacted" and how much did you spend?

I am still questioning the viability of that model unless the gamer is more or less forced to use
microtransaction.

A system like that can be complemented by marketing campaigns. e.g., Have the players compete for top 3 prizes every month. The online game organizer can solicit for sponsorships for the prizes, while players pay (for special capabilities) to fight for the prizes (even cash prizes).

So the short answer is: Yes, people can be encouraged to buy stuff. But it kinda detracts from the original purposes of gaming (to relax and have fun ?)

 

[scooby_dooby]

Imagine you've played Halo3 for 30 hours, have got near the end, and the next 10 hours are spent in the same place getting whipped left right and centre by the Mungo Hordes. There's a special gun available for $3 that'd make your life a lot easier. Do you...

I don't see this happening, that's just horrible game design. With 50% or more of your potential consumers never going online, are you really going to create a game so difficult that it can't be passed without purchasing some bonus weapon online? And the reviewers would absolutely slam the game.