Maybe watch the video, pay attention and keep an eye out for the ''its OPTIONAL!'' 3x defense smurf bit
-
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.
Jim Sterling criticizes Microsoft's role in normalizing microtransactions (see staff post)
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Maybe watch the video, pay attention and keep an eye out for the ''its OPTIONAL!'' 3x defense smurf bit
Yes (I didn't have Gold, but technically I have it now as it's bundled in GP Ultimate subscription until mid-2021 when I need to evaluate the value of that subscription next time).
Anyway, I don't have Switch and mainly play on PC where all online is free, so Sony doesn't get any credit from me having online free F2P (but I do blame MS for having Gold requirement on free games MP on consoles).
Last part of the statement ignores shareware in the 90s and mail order games in the 80s and 90s.
One of the first Indie game jams was held in 2002, with pc's supplied by intel.
Regardless of what iron can be used for...
Those are co-op modes. Pay to win is generally aimed at pvp.
You're not winning vs other players in co-op pve.
If you want to invoke ancient history, then one certainly can't use the microtransaction argument against them either. They were everywhere in arcades in the 80s.
I'll agree that it's wrong to say that they "created indie games"... but the Xbox 360 is a huge reason why indie games took off on consoles the way they did. In that regard, it deserves a lot of praise.
Agreed.
To my mind, the idea of Gamepass with first party titles means mtx have to be an underpinning for them to help with the development cost.
No game can truly be ''free'' after all.
If never ending amazing $1-2 promotions are always available to sub, mtx seems a necessary evil to make more money back.
How, the indie scene existed prior to MS entry into the console space, the first self identified indie game jam occurred months after Xbox was released with no ms involvement.
Playing PAC man did not require the user buy the game at full price then pump coins in for 3 or one life at a time. Dead space 3's microtrastactions did not include a 20cent purchase to res pawn/gain a life. Elderscroll's oblivion's horse armour was not a Trojan horse to respawn your character after it's death.
It was a joke, I said so earlier.
Also the context is normalization, cause that was the thread is about, not first, just like with Microtransactions, I don't think Microsoft created those either.
I edited my post regarding Microsoft's indie game push. Their efforts with XNA and XBLA on the 360 was a huge part why indie games became mainstream on consoles last gen. To try to diminish that fact is frankly quite ridiculous.
Microtransactions are microtransactions. A lot of people have issues with f2p games as well. And if you want to separate arcade microtransactions from modern microtransactions, then one could argue that there are differences between 90s indie games and 2000s indie games as well.
Please note: I'm not literally saying that the arcades are why we have microtransactions today. I'm simply saying that it follows the same train of thought as "we had indie games in the 90s so there".
That was quite the video.
I don't think he's entirely correct, to me it seems that MS mostly went along with the mtx and lootbox ideas presented by third parties. He states one of the earliest offenders is Dead Space 3;
(Even years after release I'm still mad about how EA treated the series) looking at how it was implemented by Microsoft it was more of direct follow up to that game; Ryse had boosters, Forza too and uh, Crimson Dragon. It seems more of an action/reaction kind of thing.
Even with the games that came out in the years after the Xbox One, it seems like a standardizing practice. Not a "MS made games worse". Or well, you could argue that in comparison to Nintendo and Sony they did in regards to their first party productions.
I did laugh about the Gears 5 thing in which developers consider themselves to be ahead of the curve by not adding lootboxes. Thats the worst thing you can be proud of.
If anything it makes EA, 2K, Activision look even worse.
I don't think he's entirely correct, to me it seems that MS mostly went along with the mtx and lootbox ideas presented by third parties. He states one of the earliest offenders is Dead Space 3;
(Even years after release I'm still mad about how EA treated the series) looking at how it was implemented by Microsoft it was more of direct follow up to that game; Ryse had boosters, Forza too and uh, Crimson Dragon. It seems more of an action/reaction kind of thing.
Even with the games that came out in the years after the Xbox One, it seems like a standardizing practice. Not a "MS made games worse". Or well, you could argue that in comparison to Nintendo and Sony they did in regards to their first party productions.
I did laugh about the Gears 5 thing in which developers consider themselves to be ahead of the curve by not adding lootboxes. Thats the worst thing you can be proud of.
If anything it makes EA, 2K, Activision look even worse.
Hence how things like GamesPass are going to negatively impact game development and be a net negative for the industry.
I will say, It is quite interesting that sony keeps releasing AAA games with absolutely no microtransactions when they EASILY could.
(Spiderman, GOW, Horizon, Days Gone, Detroit, etc.)
Granted, sony mostly makes single player games, nothings stopping them from charging for skins or ingame currency like assassins creed.
MS is in a tough position, where they're all about GaaS, a model where recurring revenue is the whole point. Plus now that gamepass is their main focus, they're gonna need microtransactions even more than ever.
(Spiderman, GOW, Horizon, Days Gone, Detroit, etc.)
Granted, sony mostly makes single player games, nothings stopping them from charging for skins or ingame currency like assassins creed.
MS is in a tough position, where they're all about GaaS, a model where recurring revenue is the whole point. Plus now that gamepass is their main focus, they're gonna need microtransactions even more than ever.
GamePass wasn't a thing at the start of the generation though. GamePass has actually been on the market a shorter time than the Switch has.
While I don't agree with Jim that Microsoft was the one to go full bore on it (EA was already leading the charge on that last generation) Microsoft has been in since day one with microtransactions and pay-2-pay experiences where you're skipping the "grind".
no one wants skins to show off to themselves.
that's why they show up in mp games.
mtx keeps paying the bills for the expected years of maps and support for the mp part of games
At the end I think it's fair and even a good thing to criticize companies even when they are supposedly consumer friendly. But the entire narrative/thesis of the video is just incorrect, and seems to come from a desire to have a video rather than a compelling argument.
Grand Theft Auto 5 Online release in October with the micro transactions.
Last of Us was selling hats for 0.99$ in that same October and later on Killzone would have micro transactions that same year.
EA was already covered in that video, I think BF had them too.
Activision released Ghosts which has Micro transactions, and had Skylanders and WoW before that.
Capcom has SFxT a whole year before this, RE6 had them in 2012 too(ahead of the curve there baby)
Square Enix had Tomb Raider, Lightning Returns, FFXIV(maybe I can't find info on if the original had the mog station.)
All of those companies biggest releases that year had micro transactions, all the games were 60 dollars, all came out before or during the same time as the MS games in the video. I don't think Jim is dumb but his argument that MS pushed it/normalized it, is just dishonest(or poorly researched) and is probably more damaging than being some sort of Corporate bootlicker as he is trying, unintentionally, to place the blame solely(or mostly) on MS, thereby absolving(hiding) the blame from other companies, rather then spread it around.
Ubisoft for their part only had Splinter Cell which had map packs that year(as far as I can find), so if you want a major Corp to champion besides Nintendo...
Edit:I forgot about Black Flag.
Grand Theft Auto 5 Online release in October with the micro transactions.
Last of Us was selling hats for 0.99$ in that same October and later on Killzone would have micro transactions that same year.
EA was already covered in that video, I think BF had them too.
Activision released Ghosts which has Micro transactions, and had Skylanders and WoW before that.
Capcom has SFxT a whole year before this, RE6 had them in 2012 too(ahead of the curve there baby)
Square Enix had Tomb Raider, Lightning Returns, FFXIV(maybe I can't find info on if the original had the mog station.)
All of those companies biggest releases that year had micro transactions, all the games were 60 dollars, all came out before or during the same time as the MS games in the video. I don't think Jim is dumb but his argument that MS pushed it/normalized it, is just dishonest(or poorly researched) and is probably more damaging than being some sort of Corporate bootlicker as he is trying, unintentionally, to place the blame solely(or mostly) on MS, thereby absolving(hiding) the blame from other companies, rather then spread it around.
Ubisoft for their part only had Splinter Cell which had map packs that year(as far as I can find), so if you want a major Corp to champion besides Nintendo...
Edit:I forgot about Black Flag.
Last edited:
I can only speak for myself, but I would have paid a stupid amount of money for that Tobey Maguire Spiderman skin.
Luckily i don't really get into multiplayer games. so yay.
Its hilarious how Jim just went and forgot how Ubisoft pushing the biggest of these even back in 360days. I mean look at Unity. I get it , his point ia that first party shouldnt sell mtx, cause Sony is not doing it but MS has different management to Sony.
I watched the video and I agree with him somewhat. I hated the P2W REQ pacs in Halo 5
I do agree that MS has the most prevalent MTX, but there is some handwaving going on here by completely ignoring that the other two do it also, however "less" one might think it may be done.
That's just the thing though, Sony did (and still does) sell MTX and Nintendo has Amiibo.
I do agree that MS has the most prevalent MTX, but there is some handwaving going on here by completely ignoring that the other two do it also, however "less" one might think it may be done.
That's because most gamepass games are third party and many of them were made without even thinking about how gamepass would come into it.
MS games do have microtransactions and who knows if they will get worse if they come to rely on gamepass more.
And who knows how third parties will react if most of their users come from gamepass.
I laughed at that part.
I think the next round of games coming from MS Studios (esp from their newly acquired ones that have historically been primarily SP experiences) will be enlightening as to this. I'm being optimistic, but I do have some concern that things will slide towards the stereotypical mobile "gacha" games with GamePass.
Never said it was unfair criticism, i was just responding to the guy who was surprised by him bashing microsoft.
Haven't watched the video but I am going to queue it up but i distinctly remember years ago either around the xbox live beta or after it there was a discussion on what dlc was and I remember they were like 'buying a gun in a different color'.
While they weren't the first, the idea behind monetization was def. one of the first things they embraced
While they weren't the first, the idea behind monetization was def. one of the first things they embraced
lately, ok, sure. but Jim (for better or worse) really focused in on the Xbone's launch window, which was a cacophony of cynical cash grabs and bad ideas.
Ok fair enough but don't most first party games have some microtransactions?
I don't really know since I only play a few of them but gears halo and Forza do
Wow when I mentioned Sony butchering Last of Us with MTX I was referring to the pay to win weapons and shit but you're right it was fucking loaded with helmets and masks and hats, plus shit like gestures and executions. And Killzone also had voice and skins MTX.
To be fair to Jim though this was Last of Us and Killzone, not big franchises like Lococycle and Crimson Dragon.
There doesn't need to be an alternative timeline for you to place more blame on the company that came up with an awful idea and made it popular
The Wii started waggle and MS and Sony then came out with their own waggle controls, but you don't give all 3 the credit for making motion controls popular, you give it to Nintendo as they started the ball rolling and created an environment were not having a motion control option was leaving money on the table
Once MS opened Pandoras box it would be stupid for Sony and Nintendo to not also ask for free money, since the market had shown consumers were happy to give first party developers free money
Hang on, according to some people here, skins and cosmetics don't count as micro transactions? Since when?
Ehhhh, Ubisoft go whole hog in cosmetic mtx for AssCreed with your horse, boat and ship mates in Odyssey.
Sony for instance could've charged a shit ton for Spidey skins and people would've gladly forked over cash, instead of just making them in-game unlocks (like the good ol' days!) and free updates.
So there is always room for cosmetic mtx in SP games especially when there is an element of focus on making your character look cool or unique.
Its always just a question of how much greed a publisher leans into imo for full priced games.
I am VERY interested in how ND approach TLoU Part II multiplayer.
I mean UC4 had loot boxes for skins and dances, but they weren't egregious and didn't require insane grinding to unlock most stuff.
However its 2019, and the word lootbox is as dirty as a box of tissue when I'm left home alone.
I'd hope they approach the MP situation well.
I disagree as it would have been better and right thing to do for Sony and Nintendo to keep MP free and not blocking it behind subscription walls. (Also, and I don't blame Nintendo for Kinect or Move). Corporations choosing and actively doing bad things against their consumers wishes should get 100% of the blame for those actions, even when they are not original things. No need to deflect and shift blame elsewhere.
Fair enough, that's a weird take, but one you are entitled to
Amiibos are toys. And even if I grant you that they are mtx (they aren't) I like the option to reuse mtx I bought years ago across multiple titles. But mtx aren't even letting you do that. So the comparison makes no sense outside of trying to prove Jim wrong
How well do you think amiibo would sell if they were not tied into in game bonuses? Are they marketed just as a toy? (No they aren't)
You may not want to call them MTX because MTX has a negative connotation to it but they serve the same function. And just because they have effects in multiple games doesn't take away they serve as MTX
You don't have to agree with me but there is no need for the condescending last sentence.
Hmm. There might be something to that. The push and pull with publishers costantly testing the limit of what players will accept before internet rioting is like... It's pretty intense. My other hobbies are much less popular and i dont know if there is any close analog to our non stop montezation controversies. In movies? Board games? Lol.
Sterling plays a character and he's got clickbait titles but he wouldn't be able to continue banging this drum if there was nothing to it. Maybe it could be thought as a vent for the collective anger of game audiences?
I know, it's kinda like owning your own mistakes and not blaming others, but in corporate world.
I didn't watch the video, and I have no doubts MS can be blamed for a bunch of stuff like XBL enabling MTX in the first place, not to mention all of their games having MTX (not that all of MS games have MTX, but for all their games which have MTX, which is quite a lot).
But I dunno, I'm always conflicted when people criticize companies while not criticizing the free market they operate in. I mean, we should criticize companies for having bad practices, but in these examples it's not like people aren't buying MTX in the first place, so blaming companies for offering products people are willing to pay for is weird if you don't criticize the "free market" sham in the first place.
As long as there's no regulation, it's a bit disingenuous to expect companies not to sell products people are buying, even if you think said products produce negative side effects to the industry.
And this is coming from someone who really don't like MTX. Like at all.
(and not for monetary reasons)
But I dunno, I'm always conflicted when people criticize companies while not criticizing the free market they operate in. I mean, we should criticize companies for having bad practices, but in these examples it's not like people aren't buying MTX in the first place, so blaming companies for offering products people are willing to pay for is weird if you don't criticize the "free market" sham in the first place.
As long as there's no regulation, it's a bit disingenuous to expect companies not to sell products people are buying, even if you think said products produce negative side effects to the industry.
And this is coming from someone who really don't like MTX. Like at all.
(and not for monetary reasons)
They already have. People want to be bothered by some tacked on cosmetics that have no bearing on the game. That shit is irrelevant and I get free maps. I have played a lot of MS games even some that Jim decided to highlight and have never thought about spending money on any extra content in any capacity. I prefer that than having to buy new maps in gears or Halo.
They are but why would anyone care if someone wants to spend their money on stupid shit? It has pretty much no bearing on the game so it's a stupid complaint. You can play any title he mentioned from the MS side and just ignore the Micro transactions.
Probably just as well or as poorly. The appealing ones are great looking statues people keep around.
There's a separate narrative around the death of the toys to life line and how even amiibos are affected.
But they certainly aren't mtx when You consider what they offer. A physical item, not locked to a single game, transferrable. Etc. And it's about the price of a Funko pop that you probably also have one of somewhere