Developers now taking to putting in microtransactions AFTER release

[futurefields]

I am noticing a disturbing new trend. Just in the past month or so I can think of some games that launched without microtransactions, but then had microtransactions added in later presumably to avoid the initial backlash and negative impact on review scores but still reap the financial gain for the companies that these provide for. I can think of Killing Floor 2, Payday 2, and Forza 6 (i know console only, but the point remains) all launched without microtransactions, were celebrated for not having microtransactions, and then later have now added them into the game. It seems there really is nothing you can do now with the patch-the-game-later mentality a developer can simply add in microtransactions after getting great review scores and word of mouth praise for not having them at launch. Disturbing!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...per-defends-decision-to-add-microtransactions

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...per-defends-introduction-of-microtransactions

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-11-17-forza-6-microtransactions

 

[SMOGZINN]

The solution for this is of course not to pay for microtransactions. If people didn't buy them they wouldn't make them. As long as people are willing to pay for it this will continue to happen and continue to get worse until they find the exact point in which people won't fork over any more cash.

 

[darkewaffle]

Oh my. I'm so disturbed.

I have no idea why microtransactions would impact a review of a game. If other people want to spend more money, good for them. For the record Killing Floor 1 has had purchasable skins and weapon packs for basically as long as I can remember. And it is still a ton of fun. And has no impact on the game. And nobody gives a crap.

 

[YBS1]

This particular example is not a problem. If the game was released without micro transactions, and it was praised as it was at the time, then it seems the game was "whole" without them. At that point providing they don't remove previously available content, the micro transaction content is a "value add".

That being said I detest micro transactions. Plants vs. Zombies was one of the best games ever and they ruined 2 with that crap. I'd have gladly paid $69 for the "full" game, but you'll get nothing nickel and dime'ing me.

 

[Red Storm]

This particular example is not a problem. If the game was released without micro transactions, and it was praised as it was at the time, then it seems the game was "whole" without them. At that point providing they don't remove previously available content, the micro transaction content is a "value add".

That being said I detest micro transactions. Plants vs. Zombies was one of the best games ever and they ruined 2 with that crap. I'd have gladly paid $69 for the "full" game, but you'll get nothing nickel and dime'ing me.

It all depends on the type of game and type of microtransaction. A multiplayer game that has game play affecting microtransactions is terrible, terrible design. Cosmetic only microtransactions? Not a big deal at all.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The solution for this is of course not to pay for microtransactions. If people didn't buy them they wouldn't make them.

The inverse of this is of course to make sure through reviews of the game and general word of mouth that you're happy with the amount of content at launch, then you have no real grounds to complain about later microtransactions.

I have no problem with idiots paying money for all sorts of gubbins in game, what I do have a problem with is developers who hold back value from the game they would ordinarily include in the full price, only to later include that as micro transactions.

So the rule of thumb should be to make sure you're happy with the content at launch, don't settle for less than you think your money is worth. The only real exception to this is the nasty mess that the Payday devs got themselves into where they deliberately gimped the stats of weapons in an update in order to sell you skins that alter those stats back to being reasonable again, that's completely and utterly diabolical and I hope that company shuts down.

 

[bystander36]

You see, I think it's a problem when the game is released with micro-transactions. I don't see a problem if some time after release, after seeing their game is well liked, they decide to add some new continent. Shouldn't they get paid for the time they spend to add onto the game? This is more like a mini expansion, which I'd expect to pay for.

I do have issues when a game is released with them right from the get go. That doesn't seem right to me. They had a budget, the developed the game, and they are going to hold back content unless you pay extra for it? That doesn't sit well for me, and I wouldn't buy a game like that.

 

[Zenoth]

The solution remains the same regardless of their "methods" (and post-release waiting period) of micro transactions implementation: vote with your wallet.

 

[Homerboy]

I honestly don't have any issues with microtransactions. (of course unless they are more or less needed to win/excel at the game). They aren't about to go anywhere so you're going to have to get used to them.

Game companies make games to make money and microtransactions are a way to keep the money coming after the initial sale (and in theory, the game will keep evolving)

I've been addicted to Path of Exile for the past few months and it's a free game based on MTs. You don't need to buy a thing to beat or do well at the game. Same thing goes for TF2. These are probably my 2 most played games in the past decade, and they do MTs right.

 

[futurefields]

I have issues with MT because then they build the game economy so it takes a ton of time to grind for stuff. Look at GTA Online the prices on stuff is absurd. A million bucks for a lowrider lolwut?

 

[Homerboy]

I have issues with MT because then they build the game economy so it takes a ton of time to grind for stuff. Look at GTA Online the prices on stuff is absurd. A million bucks for a lowrider lolwut?

But you don't need that low rider to win/beat the game do you?

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

what's even worse with kf2 is it's still in early access. they've hardly added anything to the game since it was released in early access and now they've added the micro transactions.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I have issues with MT because then they build the game economy so it takes a ton of time to grind for stuff. Look at GTA Online the prices on stuff is absurd. A million bucks for a lowrider lolwut?

You don't need to buy the in game currency nor do you need to buy that particular car. It's optional. If you are rich in the game maybe you buy it for the collection. You are at no disadvantage in the game if you choose not to pay real money.

Similar to Forza 6. They have credits in game you earn to buy cars or you can buy tokens. You can pay real money to not have to grind races for 5 hours to get enough money to buy and upgrade the car of your choice. You are not forced to buy tokens and can earn everything legit just like GTA.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You don't need to buy the in game currency nor do you need to buy that particular car. It's optional.

Nor do I need to buy the game. It is optional.

 

[BSim500]

But you don't need that low rider to win/beat the game do you?

You don't need to buy the in game currency nor do you need to buy that particular car. It's optional. If you are rich in the game maybe you buy it for the collection. You are at no disadvantage in the game if you choose not to pay real money.

Whilst you don't need this stuff to win, "pay to win" style micro-transactions are a seriously bad precedent as they virtually encourage devs in future games to start "inflating" (time required grinding to acquire stuff relative to overall main gameplay) to "encourage" more people to pay real money. And in many other games that can change the dynamics. Look at the mess mobile gaming is in now where what started as an enhancement is now industry standard suckage where games will be designed to "nudge" you into that "option" or you'll get stuck hard, not down to lack of skill but intentionally rigged game dynamics whose level of "grinding required" would probably be toned back a bit had the in-app purchase option not existed. Some of this nonsense is fast heading to the stage where if you have limited time to play games, you might as well download a trainer / mod / save game editor and "cheat" yourself the same amount of "pay to win" stuff then simply enjoy the main game without wasting half your life on tacky "monetized meta-game" grinding by developers who seem to treat modern desktop gaming PC's as glorified 24-32" mobile phones... :hmm:

 

[cmdrdredd]

Whilst you don't need this stuff to win, "pay to win" style micro-transactions are a seriously bad precedent as they virtually encourage devs in future games to start "inflating" (time required grinding to acquire stuff relative to overall main gameplay) to "encourage" more people to pay real money. And in many other games that can change the dynamics. Look at the mess mobile gaming is in now where what started as an enhancement is now industry standard suckage where games will be designed to "nudge" you into that "option" or you'll get stuck hard, not down to lack of skill but intentionally rigged game dynamics whose level of "grinding required" would probably be toned back a bit had the in-app purchase option not existed. Some of this nonsense is fast heading to the stage where if you have limited time to play games, you might as well download a trainer / mod / save game editor and "cheat" yourself the same amount of "pay to win" stuff then simply enjoy the main game without wasting half your life on tacky "monetized meta-game" grinding by developers who seem to treat modern desktop gaming PC's as glorified 24-32" mobile phones... :hmm:

It's not pay to win. Cause you don't get something nobody else can get and are not forced to pay in order to progress.

 

[XavierMace]

I can think of Killing Floor 2, Payday 2, and Forza 6

Incorrect. Forza 6 was going to have micro transactions since day one. Just like Forza 5 and Forza 4. I believe both Horizon's did as well.

 

[MongGrel]

It would be far from the first time it was done to begin with.

 

[JamesV]

I prefer expansions over smaller content updates, and publishers are losing my money by going to the current nickel and dime operations.

The first time I saw a 'season pass' option, I knew it was all downhill for any AAA title. A long, long time ago, game developers tried to deliver a fun game full of strategy and choices, but now we're being sold 60% of their vision with 10% off if we pay more to get the full game as envisioned in a later update.

There are games like Path of Exile where any money you spend is cosmetic, and you feel good supporting developers of a game you love. Then there are the games designed to get most of your money they can by dragging out content. Tropico is a the perfect example of the latter; numerous dlc's that were planned before the original game ever came out. Thank god for Steam where you can get the 'GOTY editions'; Tropico pre-5 is great when you get it all for one price.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I prefer expansions over smaller content updates, and publishers are losing my money by going to the current nickel and dime operations.

The first time I saw a 'season pass' option, I knew it was all downhill for any AAA title. A long, long time ago, game developers tried to deliver a fun game full of strategy and choices, but now we're being sold 60% of their vision with 10% off if we pay more to get the full game as envisioned in a later update.

There are games like Path of Exile where any money you spend is cosmetic, and you feel good supporting developers of a game you love. Then there are the games designed to get most of your money they can by dragging out content. Tropico is a the perfect example of the latter; numerous dlc's that were planned before the original game ever came out. Thank god for Steam where you can get the 'GOTY editions'; Tropico pre-5 is great when you get it all for one price.

Incorrect in my opinion. Games cost a lot to make with voice acting and large worlds and game engines with realistic lighting etc. Developers feel that continually adding content over time will make them more money to recoup the cost of development.

You always get the whole game at release. You aren't paying for 60% of the game as you say. You're getting the whole thing right away and anything after is additional content. The way you want it is that you will never see a game release ever because you expect every future add on available when it goes to retail. Almost every game has some type of DLC because developers and publishers are trying to make up the money spent on creating the game. It's never required to enjoy the game and if you say it is then maybe that game is not as good as you thought to begin with. I have never bought a game and said "this game sucks because it has DLC coming". The game as released on retail should stand on its own. If it's good or bad.

You think games like fallout 4 with planned DLC later on or witcher 3 with a 15hour or so DLC already released are bad games or lacking content at launch? I don't and you know why? I spent 40 hours or more on each of them and I didn't even complete everything that is possible in the base game. Big AAA games do not suck simply because they have plans for extra content.

Are there developers who release games that are designed around the player base buying new content? Yes of course like CoD map packs and the way EA is doing Star Wars Battlefront. However lumping all AAA development and games into that same category is really unfair.