How do you feel about microtransactions in AAA games?

[Granyala]

I think microtransactions are an idiotic concept but can tolerate them if it's just visual fluff.

The whole DLC crap (esp 0 day DLC) needs to burn though. Shipping games with only half the content and then cashing in again on the other half is just ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

So I paid 50$ for a game and now I need to pay more just to have stuff that's already in the game I bought? Pft... To hell with it.

I don't buy these games.

Pretty much. It's either GOTY edition or bust. Still haven't bought Mass Effect 2 because of that very reason.

[Lillyth]

Not buying them, simple.

[Pull My Finger]

If people think that it doesn't affect how games are being developed, they're fooling themselves. It's obviously detrimental to the medium, but then again, only a small portion of the video game audience is even able to think in such dimensions.

[Rafoel]

I'm a dinosaur that lives in the Middle Ages and I think that microtransactions are the worst thing that happened to gaming.

[effs]

Overall, yeah they're annoying, but I don't mind micro transactions as long as they don't impact the core game. I agree that some games have some ridiculous DLCs that could easily have made it into the base game but if the DLCs add new content at a good price which adds on to the base game, then I don't mind. Also micro transactions that give you cosmetic changes I don't really care for since they aren't affecting the progress or power of my character. Destiny is a good example of overpriced DLCs that add minimal content which I refuse to invest my money in.

[Gamerloin]

I can probably write an entire book about my opinion on modern day game development and the gaming industry in general. I was going to do so, but I went a bit off topic with it, so I will keep it short and stick to the subject of micro-transactions for now.

I think it's fine. AAA titles have been at a steady price of 60 bucks (on average) for quite a few years now. Considering the fact that the production cost of games has gone up considerably, one would think it's only fair to have extra purchase options in addition of the original purchase price. Because if we didn't have micro-transactions, the price of games would probably go up as well, and you would have to spend upwards of 100 bucks to buy your new games.

From a gaming standpoint, micro-transactions should always be an option, a choice that the player makes himself. If the game has any form of competative multiplayer, and there are ways to buy your way to victory, it's no longer a choice (if the player wishes to partake in the competative scene, which they usually do; everyone wants to win in the end), and thus bad. It almost feels like the company doenst stand behind its product when they release such a game and then introduce ways to "cheat" the system by giving players pay to win options. So in this case, micro-transactions should in no way be affecting the gameplay whatsoever, and just be cosmetic alterations to the players character, HUD, weapons, vehicles etc etc.

In a single-player game with no form of co-op, multiplayer or leaderboards, I don't think it matters that much. If someone wants to drop 20 bucks to play through Dark Souls with a Rocket Launcher for example, by all means, be my guest. You can usually achieve these kind of things anyway through modding, console commands or the use of trainer software.

But in general, I think it's safest for game developers to stick to cosmetic micro-transaction only. There are tons of options in that and people will buy them even though it doesn't affect their gameplay in any way, shape or form

[Edge-]

Not a fan, but as long as it's purely cosmetic/convenience and doesn't impact gameplay at all it's a load of /whatever

[kail]

It depends on whats behind the paywall. Majority of what I've seen is meaningless. Battlefront did this terribly though from what I've heard. Buy the "elite" edition or whatever and get the best gun right off the bat, and usable in multiplayer. I find that more disgusting than the $50 season pass.

In the end, I'm only going to complain on w/e is worth complaining. Microtransactions as a concept is not something I find "evil", it just depends entirely on how it's used.

[Graeham]

People keep making excuses for shady business practices which is why they continue. Companies exist to make a profit - but it's perfectly possible for companies to make a profit whilst ensuring that they aren't just being greedy. Yes, it's usually optional - but in the worst case scenarios players who don't purchase specific items end up losing out. Either because they'll never be able to see those items again or because they're a necessity to succeed.

[Yunru]

I am ok with DLC that comes a bit later and it actuly adds to the game. But if its avaible 1st minute to 2nd week...then its pretty much just a cut content.

If its like Elder scrools dlc, i dont mind paying:
http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/O...s_%28Skyrim%29

But things like skins or little things are nothing else than a cut content.

It mostly matters in timing.

For example sims are pretty much 0.0001% of the game and rest is dlc that was cut out and its slowly added to profit.
Example for sims 3:
http://store.steampowered.com/dlc/47890/

[McNeil]

I hate them. There are games that use it right (WoW is not an example) but most of the time it ends up being a case where they chop out parts of the main game and re-sell them as overpriced DLC, or in this case microtransactions. I'm an old timer who just wants to pay like 60$ for a FULL game with ALL the content, and not pay 60$ or 70% of the game and re-sell the other 30% troughout DLC/microtransactions costing like 15$-20$ each. I'm trying not to get microtransactions and DLC confused because they're entirely different things, though I'd say DLC is just as much as a cancer.

Microtransactions is only a suitable payment method for F2P games imo, who also like to abuse the system quite often. Most of the time its fine when its just cosmetics, but it shouldn't be P2W or anything that can infuence the game to much.

I still remember the crucifiction of Dead Space 3 when they introduced microtransactions...... and nowadays we all accept it for all the other games.

[Hellfury]

Free games all for it

Full priced, 3/4 Price games, subscription based games with Microtransactions are just signs of money grabbing Publishers and game studios that care more for they shareholders than they fans(Blizzard is in the bunch)

[Auxora]

Like other said, there's a big variety in micro-transactions. Some are ok, some aren't.

Ok -> Cosmetic-only micro-transactions for a reasonable price. Destiny for example.

Not ok -> 1. Purchasable gear that's overpowered or as strong as end-game gear, especially in multiplayer games.
2. Devs completing a game, then cutting out 20% and selling the other 80% of the game as the full release, and selling the last 20% as micro-transaction missions/maps/areas, etc. That happens a lot.

[breadisfunny]

depends entirely on how they are implemented. in their current form they have been twisted into something made purely for profit and screwing over the game aspect.
for pay to play games however it's more than a bit greedy. it's a big reason why i haven't bought any current gen AAA games.
for free to play it depends on if its pay to win or not.
also i absolutely do not support day one dlc. the only exception i made was for mass effect 3 and boy do i ever regret doing that. NEVER AGAIN.
- - - Updated - - -

It's part of a modern game. Development costs continue to skyrocket, and although some companies could probably absorb that cost increase, higher profits mean they are more likely to continue producing games, and less likely to be swallowed by another business.

development costs are skyrocketing cause companies are spending WAY TOO MUCH on marketing. if they would find a way to lower costs instead of dumping more and more money into a game they might get better results. none of this is something we HAVE TO ACCEPT. this modern process is quickly headed towards self destruction. you can see it in the number of developers and publishers either closing up shop because of it or turning towards mobile where it's more profitable. i suspect the only reason ea hasn't done so is because of their notorious habit of swallowing up talented developers.