Microtransactions Going Down?

We all know that one of the big cancers in triple AAA gaming is the game as service model featuring microtransactions and P2W features. Developers rip out a PvP game with in-game lootboxes players can grind endlessly to try to pay for or simply spend a few bucks to try to get that rare, elusive item that will give them the advantage or skin they want.

We all know people who've spent hundreds or more on lootboxes because trying to earn them is a painfully grindy experience by design.

So your $60 game rapidly becomes something you've spent several hundred on before too long if you want to be competitive.

And now, governments are looking to put a stop to the practice because it's gambling in games marketed to kids. We know this has been pushed more aggressively in Europe, and on a state level, Hawaii tried to do something but were defeated by games lobbyists. Now it looks like there will be legislation put before the Senate potentially in the near future attempting to regulate the practice, and this is an issue that does have bipartisan support. So it may go somewhere.

I'm of two minds on this.

I think that developer greed has pushed triple AAA games into a rut of punching out these crap games with a microtransaction model. They're killing themselves off. If forced out of the relentless "games as service" model, they might have to diversify into different types of games again and rediscover quality and storytelling and other things that made people want to buy games and play them. Better games might mean less need to rely on gambling as a way of making money.

On the other hand, government involved in the gaming industry is not a good thing anymore than it is when government gets mixed up in anything else.

This is why I use a raspberry pi and retropie to retro game.

originally posted by: ketsuko

We all know that one of the big cancers in triple AAA gaming is the game as service model featuring microtransactions and P2W features. Developers rip out a PvP game with in-game lootboxes players can grind endlessly to try to pay for or simply spend a few bucks to try to get that rare, elusive item that will give them the advantage or skin they want.

We all know people who've spent hundreds or more on lootboxes because trying to earn them is a painfully grindy experience by design.

So your $60 game rapidly becomes something you've spent several hundred on before too long if you want to be competitive.

And now, governments are looking to put a stop to the practice because it's gambling in games marketed to kids. We know this has been pushed more aggressively in Europe, and on a state level, Hawaii tried to do something but were defeated by games lobbyists. Now it looks like there will be legislation put before the Senate potentially in the near future attempting to regulate the practice, and this is an issue that does have bipartisan support. So it may go somewhere.

I'm of two minds on this.

I think that developer greed has pushed triple AAA games into a rut of punching out these crap games with a microtransaction model. They're killing themselves off. If forced out of the relentless "games as service" model, they might have to diversify into different types of games again and rediscover quality and storytelling and other things that made people want to buy games and play them. Better games might mean less need to rely on gambling as a way of making money.

On the other hand, government involved in the gaming industry is not a good thing anymore than it is when government gets mixed up in anything else.

They wouldn't do it if it didn't work (i.e., idiots willing to pay).

I haven't found it to be a big deal on my Xbox games, but I am a casual player. However, I literally stopped buying mobile games because it seemed like the only way to progress was to buy upgrades.

Govt has no place legislating this.... the free market will sort it out.

On the other-other hand, this is a simple evolution of "expansion packs" - in large multiplayer online games, for many years, you've been able to buy the expansion pack (say another $20 on top of your $60 game) to get an edge of people unwilling to buy that expansion.

They've ruined the whole thing for most old time pc gamers, but people growing up with that as the norm are also growing up in a world where $5 doesn't buy a coffee anymore, so they might be more willing to spend that $2.99 for the in-game purchase.

Screw 'em all, they're getting no more of my dimes. Back to factorio and KSP for me.

a reply to: lordcomac

I have less problem with buying an expansion pack when it's a true expansion and not content that should have come with the original game that they block and then expect you to pay for or even microtransactions for solely cosmetic features like new skins.

When we're talking about paying money for actual mechanical advantage, I draw the line.

But when the big developers just start cutting games in development and saying things about how their players just don't want anything other than Fortnight or FIFA style games larded down with microtransactions, it's clear they're excluding sectors of the market in favor of milking that percentage that will do stupid things.

a reply to: Edumakated

I literally stopped buying mobile games because it seemed like the only way to progress was to buy upgrades.

Absolutely THIS.

The only games and Apps I buy don't have 'in-App' purchases. I have nor problem paying an upfront purchase price, but I am not going to be scammed by these people into spending unlimited money just unlocking the functionality of a game or App.

Personally I think this kind of thing should be illegal. These games are played by people of all ages and children don’t understand that micro transactions trigger the exact same Pavlovian response as casino gambling, specifically slot machines.

Back in the day you would pay your $60 and get a full game, now it seems that $60 gets you about half a game and the rest is behind paywalls.

I used to love the battlefield games but I refuse to buy a game that immediately releases an “update” that costs another $30. Or games like call of duty that release a game every year that’s just the same game with different textures.

This is why the recent Star Wars battlefront games failed so bad, there was almost no content at release.

Personally I think fortnite did micro transactions best, you could never spend a dollar on the game and get basically the same experience as everyone else, just with a less flashy character.

Another thing that’s happening more and more is company’s releasing half finished games and promising updates later to fix the long list of problems, to examples that come to mind are No Mans Sky, which wasn’t fun to play until over a year after release and major updates, and fallout 76, which was full of bugs and uninspired loot and pointless micro transactions.

Game company’s might be finally figuring out why their franchises that have been insanely popular in the past, now barely sell and are hit with horrible reviews.

I do really wish that through the benefits of capitalism the players banded together and boycotted the games that do this. The problem is the sheer number of players, and sheer number of young new players that come along every minute who either don't know better, or have always had this model as part of how video games are played.

I can't stand playing games with micro-transactions contained within them. But admittedly, there are still a few that I do (but not PvP games that have them). That said, I am thankful for the developers that don't participate in this and still develop with integrity.

Even when posited, I don't see the government having the authority to dictate here.

a reply to: ketsuko

The government has no business protecting people from themselves.

Im an avid gamer, but I've never once seen microtransactions as a problem. If you don't like that a game has them, don't play it. Isn't hard.

And those complaining that kids are getting hooked and spending, (adults have no excuse, YOU'RE AN ADULT, ACT LIKE ONE), why the hell does a child have access to a credit card? Further, why is he spending on a video game? Parents need to take responsibility. If your child is doing it, why? Do you let them play games constantly? Lack of boundaries? Again, look in the mirror, you're their parent, act like it.

Ther governments responsibility is to build and maintain infrastructure, police our streets and guard our borders. They have no place telling us how to spend our money.

a reply to: nightbringr

I actually haven't bought a AAA title in over a year now, and our kid isn't playing them either.

But I would like to play games again. The problem is that so many are into this trash either because they don't know any better, or their parents don't know any better, or they need to play that badly that the big developers are shutting down and/or converting all their games into this model.

I've personally lost two of my favorite developers to being bought out then steadily monetized or run into the ground by the big publishers.

I am hoping CD Projekt Red delivers with CyberPunk. In the meantime, I'm playing mostly indy titles.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nightbringr

I actually haven't bought a AAA title in over a year now, and our kid isn't playing them either.

But I would like to play games again. The problem is that so many are into this trash either because they don't know any better, or their parents don't know any better, or they need to play that badly that the big developers are shutting down and/or converting all their games into this model.

I've personally lost two of my favorite developers to being bought out then steadily monetized or run into the ground by the big publishers.

I am hoping CD Projekt Red delivers with CyberPunk. In the meantime, I'm playing mostly indy titles.

Well, if you are a PC gamer, Steam is full of hidden gems from indy developers or even one man/ smal teams. Rimworld is one of the best games I've ever played, hands down. Lots of others too.

AAA games are meh these days.

a reply to: nightbringr

AAA games are meh because they're spending all their time and energy innovating the best ways to monetize rather than trying to innovate the actual game experience in any way.

But I agree about Rimworld. I have several colonies running, each with different mod combos to make them different. Lovecraft world is fun; the first thing one of my colonists did was get obsessed with a creepy tree, write a grimoir and go nuts.

I remember when games came with everything and you unlocked stuff over time. Now, it's either grind for countless hours or pay a microtransaction price.

They're killing themselves off.

Sometimes, but a few angry gamers haven't stopped microtransactions. There must be a lot of people throwing their wallets at these games because Iv'e only seen an increase in microtransactions over the past two years, despite people being angry about it.

When big corporations like EA take over, they are going to do whatever it takes to increase their profits. Therefore, it's really the consumers who are at fault.

CS GO might get hit hard with its skin. $400 dollar for a skin. Proves how messed up gaming can be. You can afford 4+ new games with that.

I've stopped playing MMO games when i realize nothing is worth collecting when internet get cut off or the servers shutdown. People are actually paying real money to buy gaming accounts and skins. They'll be gone when internet or the company is gone.

What happened to when videos games used to be about stories and singleplayer and co-op? Not collectibles through real money and non-stop multiplayer online.

a reply to: makemap

Think that's bad?

Star Citizen has offered a package for $28,000 that will unlock all ships in game.

And it's not even released!

a reply to: nightbringr

Exactly. Western gaming companies are losing their soul. Only Japanese gaming industries still have it when it released Resident evil 2 remake. The West is just too dam greedy. It is quite obvious.

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: nightbringr

Exactly. Western gaming companies are losing their soul. Only Japanese gaming industries still have it when it released Resident evil 2 remake. The West is just too dam greedy. It is quite obvious.

Yet I still don't fault the companies. They are there to make money.

While I wont play a game like that, (well, I actually would if PvP isn't involved, that's the only time I care about others paying to get a leg up, and even then I don't care if it's only cosmetic), I fully endorse a companies freedom to do what they want, when they want, provided it's not illegal.

It's up to gamers to take a stand and refuse to play such games. If that doesn't happen and whales keep lining the games makers pockets, so be it.

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: makemap

Think that's bad?

Star Citizen has offered a package for $28,000 that will unlock all ships in game.

And it's not even released!

Mmmhmmm... I don't know the exact amount because they wouldn't say, but someone I know spent a very large sum of money buying ships for that as of yet unreleased title.

Not to mention the amount spent on flight controllers and other items just to play in the future.

Hate to say it, but I will laugh if that game is never released because of how much money was tossed after it by suckered in fans.

originally posted by: makemap
a reply to: nightbringr

Exactly. Western gaming companies are losing their soul. Only Japanese gaming industries still have it when it released Resident evil 2 remake. The West is just too dam greedy. It is quite obvious.

It's not like Asian companies have been much better. The Japanese started it all. Maple Story was probably the first game to use microtransactions and set the stage for the model we see today. There was also a Japanese app game that used a loot box model very early on.

Stay away from the macrobits and get back with the microbit's. Try retro.