Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you think micro transactions could end gaming

4 replies to this topic
Chukkles
  • Chukkles

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2007

#1

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:20 AM

I'm seeing it in a few friends now, on megapolis, they buy mega bucks. My friend spent 30 on imaginary money.

This system will eventually be put into console games I'm sure, then there will be so many people who can't play these time consuming games because they can't afford to fund it.

I see this as the end of gaming (at least as we know it now), in 10 years a lot of games will have you paying for upgrades and resources, stuff you get free if you put time into it, but that could take years.

Extra content is fine by me, I never do pay to play subscriptions but buying in game resources is just taking the biscuit and the more people that support this system, the quicker gaming will degenerate.

What's your opinion?

Sgt. Foley
  • Sgt. Foley

    Big Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • None

#2

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:25 AM

It depends... if they just put them there and have it as a choice to buy it, it wont end gaming.

But when you have company's that basically SHOVE every DLC down your throat and it's a hassle to try and play your game with all of this sh*t being released for it.

HUGOHL
  • HUGOHL

    In my heaven, there are no gods.

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2012
  • None

#3

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:25 AM

Could you elaborate the imaginary money, please? I'm not familiar with first world problems.

Chukkles
  • Chukkles

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2007

#4

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:32 AM Edited by Chukkles, 12 April 2013 - 07:53 AM.

QUOTE (HUGOHL @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 04:25)
Could you elaborate the imaginary money, please? I'm not familiar with first world problems.

Megabucks in megapolis are hard to come by, so you can earn like 2-3 a month just by playing the game or pay for a load in one hit with your real money.

Almost all app games use this system, pay for in game resources, it's going to come to consoles eventually because the market is there. But every game that implements this is hardly good, they are just time killers.

So that tells me an abundance of bad quality games are coming where we pay real money to be able to get anywhere with them.

eg. EA does so badly because their games are recycled over and over that they can't afford to put out massive triple A titles anymore, they instead give you smaller games which cost a lot more to play effectively.

I would give up on gaming as a whole.

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#5

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:45 PM

Your assumptions are wrong.

QUOTE
Almost all app games use this system, pay for in game resources, it's going to come to consoles eventually because the market is there. But every game that implements this is hardly good, they are just time killers.


Except not. While you get a good amount of games that are just grindfests with some pay to finish features, a lot of apps/casual games you find are pay once, play unlimitedly. Some of the ones that do offer in game purchases are good enough to not force you to do that if you want to skip the grind. And as the market evolve, this feature will start to be used in a better way as gamers educate themselves more about what a good game is and how their crappy addictive pay to win game is rubbish.

QUOTE
So that tells me an abundance of bad quality games are coming where we pay real money to be able to get anywhere with them.


You will always have games that go for the wallet alongside "good" games. The rise in the casual market with free to play skinner boxes has not killed the development of triple A or good quality games. There will always be an abundance of games riding on the waves of the big hits, like the plethora of copies of Angry Birds or Farmvilles. But as the dust settles, and as the platforms/mechanics are more known, you also get a wave of new creative titles that push the frontier ahead.

QUOTE
eg. EA does so badly because their games are recycled over and over that they can't afford to put out massive triple A titles anymore, they instead give you smaller games which cost a lot more to play effectively.


FIFA continues selling huge every year, so does Battlefield and whatnot. They are making what the people want. Just like any other company who creates iterative titles. They can afford to put out triple A titles, but they can't afford the risks. Even then, they, and other companies, still try with things like Mirror's Edge and whatnot. It's just that it's extremely risky to create a new IP if you're a big company. You also speak of smaller games as if they are a bad thing to have. I feel that because they are smaller, the risks are also minimized, giving the developers much more room to create and be creative. And if the small hit is well received enough, it might turn into a triple A title in the future. Or it might just get milked more.

Gaming won't end. Ever. It's an activity that is completely ingrained into the human mind since the dawn of civilization, albeit in a different form. It will constantly evolve, and maybe what we will see 10 years from now will be different from what we see now, but it will still exist.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users