-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Are you okay with micro transactions in SP games if it meant the studio was guaranteed to profit?
- Thread starter Riderz1337
- Start date
Just create semi-meaningful DLC from the engine and assets you've already developed.
If budget concerns are real, scale back development a bit. It's not the gamers fault if single player developments get silly money thrown at them without a care. The AA market needs to come back as more SP devs need to realise graphics and insane scope aren't everything. If anything, everything being stupidly open world and 356x the size of Skyrim is leading to burnout and people not even completing your game.
A lot of success can be had from a modest looking and sounding game if talent is put into the writing, gameplay and creativity. Look at Mass Effect Andromeda. Big flashy AAA engine and goodness knows how many staff working on it. Commercial and critical flop as the story isn't good enough, nor is the overall attention to detail and care.
On the other extreme end of the scale, look at Elex. A 25+ member team putting out an RPG which may be janky but already has a cult following and reasonable sales.
Like it or not part of the reason the industry is struggling is absolutely ridiculously bad project management and a serious divide between what gamers are asking for and what suits in boardrooms seem to think is the "required checklist" for every single game.
If budget concerns are real, scale back development a bit. It's not the gamers fault if single player developments get silly money thrown at them without a care. The AA market needs to come back as more SP devs need to realise graphics and insane scope aren't everything. If anything, everything being stupidly open world and 356x the size of Skyrim is leading to burnout and people not even completing your game.
A lot of success can be had from a modest looking and sounding game if talent is put into the writing, gameplay and creativity. Look at Mass Effect Andromeda. Big flashy AAA engine and goodness knows how many staff working on it. Commercial and critical flop as the story isn't good enough, nor is the overall attention to detail and care.
On the other extreme end of the scale, look at Elex. A 25+ member team putting out an RPG which may be janky but already has a cult following and reasonable sales.
Like it or not part of the reason the industry is struggling is absolutely ridiculously bad project management and a serious divide between what gamers are asking for and what suits in boardrooms seem to think is the "required checklist" for every single game.
No. Depending on the game and how intrusive the microtransactions are I might lose interest in the game entirely. Like Shadow of War for instance.
No. I would rather pay one price and not have a game try to sell me stuff. Either that or make your game free to play. I don't have any issue as long as it's free but don't sell me a game then try to milk more money out of me. I avoid games riddled with mt
I'm ok with:
*Cosmetic MT if they're reasonably priced.
*Minor and major DLC packs that adds quest/level content.
*Full scale expansions.
*Standalone expansions - Like what Dishonered 2 got.
Not ok with:
*Lootbox mechanics that adds grind to games that otherwise wouldn't have it.
*Star Citizen style in game purchases with ridiculous, sometimes just frightening prices.
*In game currencies for progression speed ups.
In short: I'm all for developers finding ways to get more revenue for the investment they did in the base game. Don't neccesarly care about the notion of a "complete game".
*Cosmetic MT if they're reasonably priced.
*Minor and major DLC packs that adds quest/level content.
*Full scale expansions.
*Standalone expansions - Like what Dishonered 2 got.
Not ok with:
*Lootbox mechanics that adds grind to games that otherwise wouldn't have it.
*Star Citizen style in game purchases with ridiculous, sometimes just frightening prices.
*In game currencies for progression speed ups.
In short: I'm all for developers finding ways to get more revenue for the investment they did in the base game. Don't neccesarly care about the notion of a "complete game".
No
Trying to squeeze as much money out of a product is fine but if I don't like the business model I won't buy the product. If I want to donate to charities I do so to a real charity.
Trying to squeeze as much money out of a product is fine but if I don't like the business model I won't buy the product. If I want to donate to charities I do so to a real charity.
No. The amount of money a game makes is not a concern of mine.
That being said, I don't object too strongly to cosmetic only DLC unless it's content that would have been free in the past. Anything gameplay related is a big no as that makes it far too tempting for publishers to alter game balance in an attempt to funnel players towards spending more money. Loot boxes are should also be verboten IMO.
That being said, I don't object too strongly to cosmetic only DLC unless it's content that would have been free in the past. Anything gameplay related is a big no as that makes it far too tempting for publishers to alter game balance in an attempt to funnel players towards spending more money. Loot boxes are should also be verboten IMO.
I wouldn't be okay with that. I might tolerate it if it doesn't distract me like pop up advertising or some cool down shit and doesn't keep needful content locked.
I rather prefer that the studios adapt their concepts to meet their financial capacity.
Hell no. Give me cheat codes/unlockables from challenges like the old days. Keep that blood sucking bullshit to multiplayer games.
As long as every item is available in-game without comprising the core design, sure. I understand the need to drive pre-orders, so I'm mostly ok with exclusive pre-order skins (though not retailer specific ones) and collectors editions with their fancy statues and headstart in-game items.
I'm not sure how I feel about season passes. I've never bought one and don't know the kind of content they offer. They don't seem to be worth the money?
I'm not sure how I feel about season passes. I've never bought one and don't know the kind of content they offer. They don't seem to be worth the money?
The problem lies with poor management. Adding microtransactions would allow publishers to keep making the same foolish mistakes, expecting gamers to bail them out by buying loot boxes.
Scale your damn games back a little. B tier releases are fine.
Scale your damn games back a little. B tier releases are fine.
And this is why I wouldn't be ok with them, because they would change the game design to try to encourage you to buy them (you're kidding if you don't think they would Influence the developer to design the game to push the microtransactions) That's the biggest reason I hate microtransactions, because it does influence game design for the worst.
I much prefer dlc/expansions where the developer has to make the game fun enough you want to pay to play more. Not something like microtransactions where the best way to encourage you to pay is to make the game frustrating/annoying enough to play unless you pay to skip the annoyance.
I'll ignore them like I've been for the last few years. I understand micro transactions are a very lucrative business but I don't give a rats carcass about some suits and their bank accounts.
I can understand if a small dev tries to have micro transactions in their game to earn some money for surviving and their next project, but multi billion corporations such as EA where the higher ups probably are being paid 10K USD a month? No way.
Many of you who think that its perfectly fine that multi billion rich-AF-companies implement microtransactions in their games is OK, I can't agree with you.
Its absolutely disgusting.
Many of you who think that its perfectly fine that multi billion rich-AF-companies implement microtransactions in their games is OK, I can't agree with you.
Its absolutely disgusting.
If you have enough time and money to fluff up your game with garbage side content then you have no leg to stand on when it comes to making a profit or not.
Let's first get back to more streamlined experiences instead of these time wasters.
Let's first get back to more streamlined experiences instead of these time wasters.
I think the mentality behind the idea of the thread is wrong, consumers aren't the responsible for the fate of a company, the failure of a company is up to the company itself, it's up to the company to manage itself well and sell profitable products that consumers buy so that the company can sustain itself, it's not the duty of consumers to make a company survive.
Consumers who don't like IAP shouldn't accept IAP just to make a company survive, they should do the exact opposite, they should clearly say that IAP means no buy, instead of making games that are so expensive that in addition to the full price they need dlc, IAP, loot boxes, season passes etc developers should do games of the size they can afford.
Consumers who don't like IAP shouldn't accept IAP just to make a company survive, they should do the exact opposite, they should clearly say that IAP means no buy, instead of making games that are so expensive that in addition to the full price they need dlc, IAP, loot boxes, season passes etc developers should do games of the size they can afford.
Last edited:
No. I want to pay up front so I don't have to pay afterwards. MTX are never okay to me. Not in MP, and I will actively not buy one that has them in SP.
I'm fine with fewer 1080p60s if that's what it takes though.
I'm fine with fewer 1080p60s if that's what it takes though.
Last edited:
No. I'm fine with season passes and DLC packs with cosmetic items, but I will never support lootboxes, in-game currencies and other microtransactions based "time savers" in single player games. This year showed us how microtransactions can completely ruin the game economy. I really can't support games with constant need for grinding just to encourage player to buy some lootboxes to make things easier. This is very anti-consumer practice.
Okay can we be clear about something first? Game budgets are out of control and have been for a long damn time but as we saw with the information released about Dead Space 2 a lot of it is just pure bad management throwing money around and then deciding to fix it by setting crazy high goals in order to recoup the wasted money used for the game. DS2 had a 60 million dollar budget for the game and another 60 million for marketing. Even if we ignore the budget for the game itself there is so god damn way the game needed as much of a marketing budget as the game itself and if we remember DS2's marketing was excessive with stupid TV commercials about how your mom hates the game and shit like that, it didn't drive sales hell it likely did the opposite for how stupid and juvenile it was. I know I didn't pick it up after seeing those commercials as to me what I saw was just shit you'd find in slasher films instead of real horror so I completely lost interest in the game. On the game development side I'd love to know how much money of that budget went into that completely unnecessary multiplayer mode that I didn't even remember existed until someone mentioned it back in the original topic on gaf, I have a hard time believing that they didn't spend at least 1/6th of that budget just on that mode.
So to continue on, yes games cost a lot to make but a lot of that cost comes from terrible management. The AAA industry keeps chasing these crazy goals with yearly sequels which requires an ungodly amount of crunch time forced on developers which also costs them a shit ton of money having to hire that much more additional staff/studios and also OT for those who aren't on salary.
It is my opinion that most of the gaming budget problems really could be fixed if there was just better management. People who would actually be willing to say no to every stupid marketing decision, understanding that crunch is ruining their games, profits, and sales, people who understand that just throwing more money at every god damn problem isn't an answer and that they need to figure out how to fix these basic issues before just demanding more and more money from consumers to fix their over spending bull shit problems that they themselves created.
*ahem* So back to the original question no, I don't think we as gamers need to spend more money on these games at least not until the industry itself starts to understand how they continue to fuck up with budgets, marketing, and unreasonable goals time and again. The spending is just getting worse on the part of publishers with marketing budgets still wildly and completely out of control and in the end even micro transactions will eventually be unprofitable if they continue going about things as they always have done. They need to fix themselves instead of demanding more money out of consumers first.
While no thats not likely to happen thats my thoughts on it.
No, microtransactions are the worst thing about the gaming industry. Im not paying 70 euros or more for a game thats filled with things I have to buy as well
The problem is that this is impossible. The sheer presence of micro transactions alters the game design. Sometimes it's very obvious. Sometimes it's more subtle. But as soon as a designer is aware of them they influence the design process.
No, I'll just play all the other games without any of that shit. Honestly if I pay 60 bucks for a game I don't even wanna think about money again while playing it and there are honestly enough games out there that won't make me think about money(and that seem to be doing perfectly fine financially) that I'm fine simply not buying any of the games that do. If you're free to play it's a different story.
Depends on what they lock behind those MT, if it's just to speed up the game, I wouldn't mind, won't get a extra penny from me, but I don't mind others having the option. If it's significant chunks of content (even characters customization, though some of that I'm not too fussed about) than I'll either not buy the game or get it very cheap.
Cosmetics like outfits used to be bonuses. You used to enter cheat codes to unlock all the content and now you have to pay for unlock passes (2K WWE games, for example). Life is Strange: Before the Storm deluxe edition includes like... 3 outfits. This stuff used to be free.
It's not my job to make sure a studio is profitable. We all know many of the issues with current game design and development though. Seems like quite the bubble as we demand games at a certain price point despite development costs (and inflation over the years) rising.
With all that said, I would probably be ok with cosmetics (personally I never buy DLC though).
With all that said, I would probably be ok with cosmetics (personally I never buy DLC though).
This is silly, if microtransactions were to be implemented in a SP game, it will definitely 100% affect the game design of it.
Also no, maybe if it were a smaller or indie studio I'd understand the need for having them, but if it's a big AAA title, absolutely not.
For me it's a catch-22.
I hate microtransactions that mess with the game in any way. Games designed and balanced around microtransactions are horrible.
But on the inverse, if I CAN avoid them with no issues whatsoever... then what's the point of having them there at all?
More than any of that is the simple concept of "value". If I feel that DLC is worth the asking price, I have no issue paying extra for extra content. But nickle-and-dime DLC - especially on loot boxes with no guarantee of getting something useful or interesting - is a very, very poor value proposition.
I hate microtransactions that mess with the game in any way. Games designed and balanced around microtransactions are horrible.
But on the inverse, if I CAN avoid them with no issues whatsoever... then what's the point of having them there at all?
More than any of that is the simple concept of "value". If I feel that DLC is worth the asking price, I have no issue paying extra for extra content. But nickle-and-dime DLC - especially on loot boxes with no guarantee of getting something useful or interesting - is a very, very poor value proposition.
No because just because the studio is making a profit doesn't mean the player benefits in the end. It's not a 1:1 example, but Rockstar shows this somewhat. No games released since 2013 aside from GTA V when they managed to publish or develop something every year from 2008 to 2013. And GTA V is certainly profitable, probably based off of sales alone, but at the same time that hasn't led to any single player DLC or expansions for V, or (again) to that money being used to publish other games as of yet. If the profit is being used to make other games or make the current game better then that's one thing, but that isn't necessarily guaranteed.
Imo, microtransactions are fine as long as they are purely cosmetic. In those cases (like Overwatch) they don't meaningfully affect the design of the game and the core player experience, while still providing incentive to purchase and additional revenue. I think that cosmetic microtransactions DO affect the player's overall experience with the game, but to an acceptable degree. Microtransactions that affect the gameplay and design are p2w.
If a studio didn't include microtransactions but instead created a Patreon and simply stated that their doing this as a replacement, I would be inclined to support them.
Has any developer tried anything like this? I'm guessing you would have to bypass a publisher to try something like this.
Has any developer tried anything like this? I'm guessing you would have to bypass a publisher to try something like this.
Yeah, MTs don't really bother me in general, if it means a game is profitable and a Publisher doesn't close said studio down then I'd much rather they be in there than not.
It is kind of refreshing playing something like TEW2, Wolf 2 and Mario Odyssey when there isn't even the slight hint of them though.
It is kind of refreshing playing something like TEW2, Wolf 2 and Mario Odyssey when there isn't even the slight hint of them though.
I don't mind it at all if it's not play to win and you have the opportunity to unlock stuff for free. Fighters are kind of the exception for me considering how much work goes into creating a character and the user base isn't the size of Overwatch where they can afford to give away characters for free.
Jesus, the black and white opinions on dlc/microtransactions in here are insane.
Anywho, sure I guess. Ideally it'd be cosmetic and only to unlock things immediately instead of whatever the game wants you to do. No dlc only items. Make it available(realistically not some super difficult and time consuming shit that 3% of gamers will be able to get) to everyone.
Don't make it free just to say you did(Street Fighter V).
That being said - it's not my responsibility to keep developers afloat. And I say this as someone who loved the Dead Space(and by extension Visceral) series.
Anywho, sure I guess. Ideally it'd be cosmetic and only to unlock things immediately instead of whatever the game wants you to do. No dlc only items. Make it available(realistically not some super difficult and time consuming shit that 3% of gamers will be able to get) to everyone.
Don't make it free just to say you did(Street Fighter V).
That being said - it's not my responsibility to keep developers afloat. And I say this as someone who loved the Dead Space(and by extension Visceral) series.
I don't care as long as they don't affect gameplay in any meaningful way. I never liked chasing unlockable cosmetic shit in games to begin with, so I'm not personally losing out on anything with that type of thing going paid. I play for fun or getting through the story etc., I don't need carrots to chase.
I also want single player games with top production values to stick around and realize the economics are tricky. Both because many of us, myself included, balk at $60 for some 10 hour experience when there are many games that we can buy and enjoy equally for many more hours and because they are harder to monetize than MP games.
I also want single player games with top production values to stick around and realize the economics are tricky. Both because many of us, myself included, balk at $60 for some 10 hour experience when there are many games that we can buy and enjoy equally for many more hours and because they are harder to monetize than MP games.
As long as no microtransaction prevents me from completing the game, publishers can put as many microtransactions as they want into their respective games. It's up to the gamers NOT to buy them. If you do, then that's on you and the number one reason as to why they exist in the first place.
I'd just rather pay $79.99 at retail than $59.99. These games give more entertainment value per hour than going to the movies does (well, unless you're on that insane MoviePass deal, maybe), so I'm fine with spending eighty dollars on a fifteen-plus hour SP game.
No. I'd rather the game was smaller and had less extras if that was needed to keep it in budget.