Are you okay with micro transactions in SP games if it meant the studio was guaranteed to profit?

Riderz1337 · Nov 4, 2017

So I'm sure we've all seen the news lately with many different developers being shut down due to how expensive game development has become and how they can't turn a profit from selling their game.

We've also seen just how profitable micro transactions can be in games which in turn could help them turn a profit on top of regular game sales.

My question is, if developers implemented micro transactions in single player games only, which then could help bring another source of income to help them profit, would you be okay with that?

I'm talking strictly single player. Someone else buying micro transactions to unlock the best weapon in the game has absolutely no effect on you or any other person who has bought the game.

Soulflarz · Nov 4, 2017

Yes as long as they don't change design choices to encourage them. Then it's buying cheat codes.

Deimos · Nov 4, 2017

As long as there's no content locked behind them and there isn't any insane grind, I don't mind at all.

Bán · Nov 4, 2017

No, because microtransactions ruin game design.

I'd rather we let the market find an equilibrium where that's not necessary. Whether by reducing budgets, improving the efficiency of middleware use, or having lots of DLC (proper extra content), they can make it work without compromising game design. That's what I want, and it's within my rights as a consumer and as a fan of games to demand that.

Everybody's Golf is an excellent example of a release in one of my all-time favourite series whose long awaited sequel this year was utterly ruined by the presence of microtransactions. I wasted my money on that game. Won't keep making that mistake buying microtransaction riddled games.

Soulflarz · Nov 4, 2017

Bán said:
No, because microtransactions ruin game design.

I'd rather we let the market find an equilibrium where that's not necessary. Whether by reducing budgets, improving the efficiency of middleware use, or having lots of DLC (proper extra content), they can make it work without compromising game design. That's what I want, and it's within my rights as a consumer and as a fan of games to demand that.

Yes but it's also within the rights of the studio owner to say "this isn't profitable at $60+dlc and your scope is too large, sorry about it"

Admiral Woofington · Nov 4, 2017

i don't mind microtransactions if they're cosmetic.

If they aren't cosmetic, then the game better be balanced to hell and high water to make sure nobody can ever doubt it doesn't require me to spend money to do well.

Bán · Nov 4, 2017

Soulflarz said:
Yes but it's also within the rights of the studio owner to say "this isn't profitable at $60+dlc and your scope is too large, sorry about it"

Of course, I never suggested it wasn't. I'll just keep avoiding those games, they can keep making them and we'll see where we end up.

Melchiah · Nov 4, 2017

Riderz1337 said:
So I'm sure we've all seen the news lately with many different developers being shut down due to how expensive game development has become and how they can't turn a profit from selling their game.

We've also seen just how profitable micro transactions can be in games which in turn could help them turn a profit on top of regular game sales.

My question is, if developers implemented micro transactions in single player games only, which then could help bring another source of income to help them profit, would you be okay with that?

I'm talking strictly single player. Someone else buying micro transactions to unlock the best weapon in the game has absolutely no effect on you or any other person who has bought the game.

Perhaps, if it involved stuff like cosmetic gear and some materials, that could be obtained without excessive grind by just playing the game.

EDIT: I'd be okay with the clothing and backbags in The Last of Us being purchasable for those who want them right away, instead of having to gather enough in-game credit.

Th0rnhead · Nov 4, 2017

I don't really mind it. Dead Space 3 had micro transactions, and the negative reaction to it was so overblown. It didn't have any effect on the game whatsoever, other than allowing people that wanted to have an easier time or finish the game quicker to do so if they wanted to spend a few bucks. As long as it's totally optional and they don't design the game to make micro transactions a near necessity, I don't see a problem.

Z.. · Nov 4, 2017

I'm only okay with microtransitions of a cosmetic nature akin to Persona 5. Everything else is absolutely disgusting to me. Capitalism in general is extremely repulsive to me, though, so take my opinion with a planet sized grain of salt.

Equirah · Nov 4, 2017

They've already implemented them in SP games and every MC is 100% profit.

I don't get your question.

Kurri · Nov 4, 2017

I personally don't have an issue with microtransactions (or lootboxes for that matter) period.

Not saying I don't have issues with how they're implemented and executed (i.e CoD's achievement), but just having it isn't going to ruin my experience.

If a single player game has it, whatever.

Sea · Nov 4, 2017

no, I oppose microtransactions because they're predatory.

Deleted member 1656 · Nov 4, 2017

Tygamr said:
I don't really mind it. Dead Space 3 had micro transactions, and the negative reaction to it was so overblown. It didn't have any effect on the game whatsoever—

Yeah, because that game sucked anyway.

DerpHause · Nov 4, 2017

No, I'm too concerned the practice would lead to balancing content around the use of MTs rather than without. Also further content gating behing paywalls.

Snormy · Nov 4, 2017

It isn't about whether there is or not but rather how the games are encouragingor enticing you to buy stuff.

If the game is good and fun, I'm willing to spend money on it. If the game is good and fun but I feel like I'm being held back because I'm not paying, the feeling is not the same and I'm less likely to pay a cent more.

Vito · Nov 4, 2017

No. Keep that shit on multiplayer.

PrinceofTheUniverse · Nov 4, 2017

there's nothing inherently wrong with micro transactions, the problem is that most game that include them are designed around the fact that they have them, in order to make the player feel that it would be easier to pay their way to better experience than to earn it naturally through gameplay. so yes i would be fine with micro transactions in a single player game if i felt like the alternative way of gaining the same content through gameplay was fair and fun and not tedious.

Widdowmaker · Nov 4, 2017

I'm against them altogether in retail games.

Deleted member 1656 · Nov 4, 2017

Mephala said:
It isn't about whether there is or not but rather how the games are encouragingor enticing you to buy stuff.

If MTs are in a game and integrated competently the game will be geared towards the player buying them rather than not.

John Omaha · Nov 4, 2017

No. Learn to budget your shit properly.

Th0rnhead · Nov 4, 2017

I will say I do think it's kind of gross that micro transactions are basically taking the place of cheat codes (in some games). Sucks to see companies monetizing as many things as possible in order to squeeze more money from consumers.

2Blackcats · Nov 4, 2017

No. We need to get rid of them and put everything back on an even playing field.

Impossible i know. Banning/regulating loot boxes would be a step in the right direction.

Cantaim · Nov 4, 2017

Depends if the micro transaction help provide a stable source of long term income and allow the developers to take more time developing their games (and using that extra time to do things like not do crunch). Then I'm all for it.

Haze · Nov 4, 2017

Tygamr said:
I don't really mind it. Dead Space 3 had micro transactions, and the negative reaction to it was so overblown. It didn't have any effect on the game whatsoever, other than allowing people that wanted to have an easier time or finish the game quicker to do so if they wanted to spend a few bucks. As long as it's totally optional and they don't design the game to make micro transactions a near necessity, I don't see a problem.

Didn't they completely change how the weapon system works just to implement the microtransactions? That doesn't seem too overblown.

As for me, I don't Buy into the "cosmetic" argument anymore because cosmetics are still content that enhance your enjoyment of the game, that's why people buy them.

Give me the game I paid for.

Liamario · Nov 4, 2017

What form would the microtransaction take? Do you have an example?

Joeku · Nov 4, 2017

The problem isn't that the games wouldn't be profitable without them. The problem is that they're just more profitable with them.

Deleted member 7207 · Nov 4, 2017

I'm fine with microtransactions so long as they remain cosmetic. The second you start throwing in more powerful weapons/vehicles/etc or granting access to content you normally wouldn't have access to until later stages in the game then it becomes a slippery slope for the developer, asking themselves how much is too much.

TheCarrotKiller · Nov 4, 2017

Are we talking about implementing it like Assassin's Creed Origins, I guess I'm fine with it. I know they are there when I play it, but the "buy this weapon using XX Helix points" or "buy this to location of every treasure chest" options are stored in a different menu, doesn't affect my play through and I can easily overlook it. I'm not a fan of them in general, but it's not like they're ruining my time with the game in this case. (Not that AC isn't profitable, but if the matter was from a studio with some uncertainty about the games performance sales wise. I rather get the game if you just keep the MT low-key)

So in a SP game, yeah don't make them intrusive and it's fine, for MP, cosmetic is the only option.

Snormy · Nov 4, 2017

Disgraced said:
If MTs are in a game and integrated competently the game will be geared towards the player buying them rather than not.

Integrated competently can be so many things.

legend166 · Nov 4, 2017

It's not my job as a consumer to care about the profitably of corporations, really. They put a product out, I decide if it's worth my money. Generally I find the presence of microtransactions ruin the balance of the game design so I don't buy them.

Minilla · Nov 4, 2017

I don't understand how 60 plus dlc costs is not profitable (as some are suggesting)

I'm sure plenty of games profit nicely on this , but publishers don't want a nice profit, they want a ridiculously large profit of the GAAS models .

If your game is good , no reason why it can't do well on a traditional pricing model .

Riderz1337 · Nov 4, 2017

Liamario said:
What form would the microtransaction take? Do you have an example?

The main thing I had in mind was cosmetic items but there could be instances where some guys would let you buy things such as resources and whatnot.

Instead of doing a quest to get 10 of a specific type of resource to craft a weapon, you could just buy the 10 resources with real life money.

Th0rnhead · Nov 4, 2017

Clusterdreams said:
Didn't they completely change how the weapon system works just to implement the microtransactions? That doesn't seem too overblown.

Was it because of the micro transactions though? I mean I definitely prefered the weapon system in the first two games, but materials were very easy to obtain. Making powerful weapons didn't take long at all. If it was geared towards micro transactions, you'd think they'd make materials much less abundant and powerful weapons a lot more difficult to craft.

I do agree that the weapon system in 3 was a mistake and it should've been handled differently, but I don't see how micro transactions caused it.

Deleted member 1656 · Nov 4, 2017

Mephala said:
Integrated competently can be so many things.

No, "integrated competently" is in the second part of my sentence. Geared towards the player buying them. Shiny on a stick. Fun game. Grind until it isn't fun, or come buy and sparkly-sparkly.

Haze · Nov 4, 2017

Tygamr said:
Was it because of the micro transactions though? I mean I definitely prefered the weapon system in the first two games, but materials were very easy to obtain. Making powerful weapons didn't take long at all. If it was geared towards micro transactions, you'd think they'd make materials much less abundant and powerful weapons a lot more difficult to craft.

I do agree that the weapon system in 3 was a mistake and it should've been handled differently, but I don't see how micro transactions caused it.

I think it's safer to come to the conclusion that the weapon creation system evolved as a medium to push microtransactions sales than not.

HP_Wuvcraft · Nov 4, 2017

John Omaha said:
No. Learn to budget your shit properly.

Micro has absolutely nothing to do with project budget. Staying on budget isn't going to magically make the market change. You might as well say "if they had stayed on budget, they wouldn't need DLC".

Riderz1337 · Nov 4, 2017

Japanonaut said:
I don't understand how 60 plus dlc costs is not profitable (as some are suggesting)

I'm sure plenty of games profit nicely on this , but publishers don't want a nice profit, they want a ridiculously large profit of the GAAS models .

If your game is good , no reason why it can't do well on a traditional pricing model .

I don't either but it's happening...

Most popular examples I can think of are Dead Space 3 and Tom Raider (the reboot). They sold millions of copies but apparently weren't very profitable or didn't profit at all. That's games from 4-5 years ago on the last generation systems. I'd imagine games nowadays cost more to make and need to sell more to profit.

Bede-x · Nov 4, 2017

Bán said:
No, because microtransactions ruin game design.

Exactly. It starts out with the idea that it won't affect the game, but pretty soon you start seeing ads in your games, button prompts leading you to the marketplace, card games, fake currencies and extra grinding to support the fake economy. And a few steps after that or along with it, you start manipulating the design to get people to buy.

A clear unequivocal no to microtransactions from me. I'll gladly pay more for my games or take lower budgets (please lower the budgets), but I see microtransactions as a real danger to the games I care about.

m_dorian · Nov 4, 2017

My stance is that no MTs should be in any Sp game.
Cosmetic MTs involving a totally unrelated MP portion of the said game are perfectly fine by me though.
Pay to win or function, like xp boosts, MTs are just another exploitation.

TheMadTitan · Nov 4, 2017

What are we talking about? Three bucks for sixty potions in game? Five bucks for that ultra set of armor that I use to have a rainbow color scheme that changes every three feet that requires me to buy it again when I get another level of that same armor from an item shop three hours later?

The latter, no. The former, hell no. I'll only accept something like the latter if the base game has enough variety for item designs already. You want to sell me something, sell me DLC. Make some new character skins every three weeks with silly themes like Santa costumes, football helmets, and all of that; fun stuff that wouldn't actually work within the theme of the game to be in the base content but don't entirely matter as DLC or game expansion content.

Th0rnhead · Nov 4, 2017

Clusterdreams said:
I think it's safer to come to the conclusion that the weapon creation system evolved as a medium to push microtransactions sales than not.

Fair enough. I'm sure that it was also suits trying to get them to jump on the whole 'crafting' trend that Minecraft blew up.

CanUKlehead · Nov 4, 2017

Maaaaan...

I understand we're in a different place now, but I still miss 'free' cheats and skins.

I guess I can tolerate cosmetic DLC or any DLC that doesn't introduce a new mechanic or story element, but I'm ok with what a lot of JRPGs do, where you have a standard game and a crazy all-out, overpriced collector's edition that superfans can pay to subsidize the rest of us shlubs.

Minilla · Nov 4, 2017

Riderz1337 said:
I don't either but it's happening...

Most popular examples I can think of are Dead Space 3 and Tom Raider (the reboot). They sold millions of copies but apparently weren't very profitable or didn't profit at all. That's games from 4-5 years ago on the last generation systems. I'd imagine games nowadays cost more to make and need to sell more to profit.

Yeah, it's disheartening .

I get the feeling it's the marketing budgets need to be scaled back as well . Some of these campaign costs must be stupid . I'm sure games like Nier has very modest marketing budgets and can do well on word of mouth .

I'm interested to know what an overall budgets for games like Nier Automata are

Haze · Nov 4, 2017

Tygamr said:
Fair enough. I'm sure that it was also suits trying to get them to jump on the whole 'crafting' trend that Minecraft blew up.

That's probably not too far off either. Didn't think of that.

Referring to my first post, One example is how NBA 2K tool cosmetic items that were once free in the game to use, and locked them behind a fake currency paywall. It's scummy. People like making their character look cool, getting stupid dances, clothing, and the like. They help you enjoy the game.

Palculator · Nov 4, 2017

I'm fine with buying things such as costume DLC, but real money sinks like the stamina systems mobile games have are unacceptable to me, no matter who my money is siphoned off to.

Deleted member 16576 · Nov 4, 2017

It's always hard with micro transactions because a lot of games rely on a satisfying reward "loop" like Diablo's loot system, getting better bows and outfits and upgrading items in Horizon, or even something as small as acquiring new plasmids in Bioshock. These systems are all a part of the core gameplay design.

Let's take Bioshock for an example. If you didn't change anything about the game, at all, and added some micro transactions that let you upgrade all your plasmids for say, $5, I personally feel like the inclusion of that 'option' degrades the value of the upgrades even if the time and in game money necessary for upgrades is unchanged.

If we look at games today, most do not leave gameplay mechanics untouched to include microtransactions. Costumes and other fun diversions that cost real world money used to be unlockables or cheat codes. The new game + outfit for Wind Waker would require an Amiibo if the game was made today.

I personally prefer games with a smaller scope that didn't need microtransactions or massive marketing budgets that require developers to meet unrealistic sales goals. But, the market demands differently.

If I had to pick a lesser of two evils, I would choose costumes and cosmetics over any form of shortcuts, time savers, or loot boxes. I get publishers want money and developers need to get paid, and I certainly want them to have jobs, but loot boxes take things too far. Also Jim Sterling's made comical points regarding publishers making "time saving" micro transactions available in the game. It genuinely seems like they don't even want you to play the game if they want you to skip right through the core systems.

Deleted member 8196 · Nov 4, 2017

No, im ok with MT only for multiplayer games to fund my free heroes, weapons, maps or DLCs. Overwatch has the best MT implementation in premium games.

Deleted member 8852 · Nov 4, 2017

Yeah if the game is free.

TheKidObi · Nov 4, 2017

They need to stay away from single player, even if it's cosmetic. Cosmetic were unlockables in previous generations we shouldn't be paying extra for stuff that was already going to be in the game.

Are you okay with micro transactions in SP games if it meant the studio was guaranteed to profit?

User requested account closure

I'll think about it

One Winged Slayer - Formerly Undead Fantasy

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

I'll think about it

User requested account closure

User requested account closure