I do like revisionist history. It did those things AFTER Xbox did.
-
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
If you had the Ultimate Edition, then you already had the DLC... Probably just had to download it still.
Bungie confirms Microtransactions paid for new stuff... this would be that myth i assume or should we say they are lying?
Push developers to be transparent about what microtransaction x is funding game as service y. There is no reason why developers can't be. But if F2P mobile games are any indication, the vast majority of microtransactions just go to publishers.
Nobody is saying anyone is lying, I just think we need to get past this idea that all microtransactions go towards post game development. Short of actual evidence that this is actually occurring, there is no reason why consumers should believe this is by-in-large occurring.
Are you suggesting that it costs zero dollars to run Xbox Live or the PlayStation network?
Do you believe Xbox Live or PSN offer a service equivalent to or better than what is found on Steam or Battle.net?
Sure. Looking at cross media, cross platform and backwards compatibility support I do believe that. I can load my movies or TV shows or apps across Xbox, PC, devices. I can share game saves and progress between by X1X Gears 5 game and my PC Gears 5 install. I can cross chat and crossplay with my friends from Xbox to PC to devices (chat only for devices, streaming will change that again). My son can simultaneously play a game against his friends on Xbox One while I join the same game on my X1X while I chat to some mates on PC and he remains in his own party chat, with just one license of the game.
There is a lot to be said about breadth and quality of Xbox Live / Game Pass services these days. The family and parental controls are also second to none. I can be at work and see my son's Xbox activity, chat history, invites etc. I'm able to monitor without interruption in real time across platforms or devices. Beyond that the LFG/clubs/feeds and other features are rock solid too.
I'm curious. What do you think funds post-launch development and content?
Sadly it seems a lot of people believe wishes and dreams funds it, especially extra content after the game is released that should all be free....
When someone makes an uninformed disingenuous claim once then for me it disqualifies everything the person says.
I have said this repeatedly, while it seems intuitive that some microtransactions get reinvested in games-as-service and post launch content proportionality matters. If 99% of developers are using less than 1% of total microtransaction funds raised to reinvest in games-as-service, people would be much less gung-ho about this practice.
The fact of the matter is that the financial side of this is very opaque (which is the problem), we shouldn't just automatically assume that microtransactions are being used like kickstarter funds when publisher profits have been ballooning over the last 10 years. My point is a. as consumers we should be asking more about how much of our funds actually go back into the game, and if developers/publishers choose not to tell us we should be skeptical of this "games fund post-game development" narrative. b. We cannot assume all microtransaction funds raised across all developers are being used the same. I'm willing to believe that there are some good-actors, but it also seems entirely likely that there are more developers/publishers that are just using the vast majority of these funds as profit. And again, there isn't necessarily anything economically wrong with that, but if that is indeed true we should at least stop repeating "microtransactions allow for games as service."
This has been discussed. Companies set record profits and lay off hundreds of people. Gold editions, silver editions, day one editions, etc. Games already cost more than 60 dollars. 60 dollars buys you the base game. If you want more content, you need the deluxe edition. If you want all the content, you probably need to buy even more stuff that doesn't come included in the deluxe edition. It's not about saving you money. It's about making the shareholders more money.
"Microsoft entered the market because they wanted the money Sony was making..."
Sony entered the market because the saw the money Nintendo was making, and Nintendo entered the market because they saw the money Atari was making (and their bowling business was failing).
Do we really need this narrative of "Microsoft, the greedy one!"?
Sony entered the market because the saw the money Nintendo was making, and Nintendo entered the market because they saw the money Atari was making (and their bowling business was failing).
Do we really need this narrative of "Microsoft, the greedy one!"?
And even then: I'm sure you could pay 10$ for a digital house in every MMO on the PC market in 2004. I remember MTX in City of Heroes.
Last edited:
MMO's are a little big different, as are F2P games, now $60 AAA games are expected to have the same sort of MTX.
In 2004 MMORPG were usually 15$ a month. F2P has catched on around 2008-9.