Microtransactions - Or why it does not work

Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Jan 7, 2012.

  1. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    arronax, then you will never play any MMO with a player base of note.

    once a game develops a playerbase worthy of note, then people will always start to sell in-game items for real money.

    unless of course you remove the ability for players to trade or transfer items by any means.
  2. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    At which point you can bet that your game will fall off the market pretty damn fast.
  3. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 30, 2009
    Yeah, you're probably right, it's quite impossible to enforce. I guess that's the reason I'll be sticking to old fashioned strategy games, where the only thing between me and success is my opponent's skill, and a little bit of luck.
  4. Atomkilla

    Atomkilla Hazel Hegemon oTO Orderite

    Dec 26, 2010
    Okay, old fashioned is one thing, but now that you mention strategy games, something occurred to me.

    I am, in a way, worried how will microtransactions progress and evolve in future and on the market. It is mostly MMO-related, or, at least, multiplayer-only games related, but it already appears in some games of genre other than MMO.
    That said, I am worried if this phenomenon could potentially take over all other genres, incorporating itself in the core elements of the games.
    Games today are already infusing online play with single play, so it is perhaps not that far fetched to say that if microtransactions become essential part of online play, they could also become an essential part of single play.

    In a way, that has already happened - just look at some DLCs for single player games (like ME2) out there which only come with a single set of armor and weapons in it.
    It is optional, yes, but is there a possibility of that becoming not only a regular thing, but somewhat mandatory, in the way that it impairs you from playing the game properly without investing additional money in order to buy a special gun to take down that end boss?

    My knowledge on the whole subject is minor, at best, so you'd have to pardon me if I've said something outrageously stupid.
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I would not be surprised if games become one day like "modules" instead of "full prize" games where you have to "buy" parts of the story. I mean they do it already now with "DLCs" sometimes (new quests, content etc.). Now imagine parts of the main quest working like that. Impossible you say ? Well some developers already thought it might be nice to do it that way. All with the intention to give the players complete freedom about "how much they want to buy from the game".

    Just that such deals never ever work in the favour of the consumer.
  6. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Well is worse when you pay full prize for a game with no content, it has free content but it is more a plataform to promote som crappy facebook knock off made by the company...... like the newer pokeyman games.
  7. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    Depends on what the consumer thinks he has to do. Commercially successful RPGs now follow the modular path, where you make money from endless supplements that add detailed options to modular systems. But that doesn't mean you can't opt out from all that and just play any old game.
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    the problem start when you don't have options left. While I doubt that microtransactions will be the only future I still have the fear it might become a dominant part. And what ever if you love capitalism now or not but you cant support a system which puts you in a disadvantage.

    The main issue is that you don't have any transparency anymore. Take for example the way how Half Life 2 changed after it was released. Now the people at Valve decided it would be "better" to design the game in the future with "episodes". Because it would speed up the development and players would not have to wait that long for new games and progress in the story. Well. Fans still wait for Episode 3. And in all that time they could have done a Half Life 3.

    I don't mind playing my old games. But I would like to see new games sometimes as well. But if I have always to get my credit card out if I want to get access to the full content of the game then I really don't need gaming anymore at all to say that. I am not talking about the F2P games like World of Tanks or League of Legends. Those games have been created with F2P from the start. Not to mention they are not single player games.

    But imagine that you get some RPG in your hands which offers you the option to play the game with a single character for 10$ and a story which takes around 5 ours. Pay some 5$ more and you can play it again as wizard, another 5$ for a Barbarian etc. And some 10$ more to get another 5 ours of content in the main quest. The side quests cost you 5$ each. And suddenly you find your self with a game that might cost 60 or 65$ for the whole content but it is actually only 45$ worth. This is just an example to make a point. I have no clue how things will go in the future. Might be for the better or the worse. But no one can tell me that horse armor was a "that great" deal. It shows where the evolution is going. And I agree with BN when he says the gaming business has some serious issues.

    I guess you have some crush on the microtransaction velociraptor