Why microtransactions are bad for consumers AKA free content can be sh*t

[RedDagger]

Buckle up chucklef*cks, I'm here to make a thinly veiled venting thread on microtransactions in GTA Online, in reaction to common statements such as "it's free content" and "you don't have to pay" - but no worries, this'll cover video games in general because modern high-budget video games are trash, and so are you.

 

TL;DR read the GTAO Style Microtransactions subsection ya plonker

 

Let's back up a bit here. Microtransactions are a system whereby the customer can purchase digital currency or items within a game for a bit of money - the idea of them being "micro" is in reference to the payments being a lot smaller than the "macropayment" of buying a game, but over time the upper bound has ballooned to well over that cost. Their main draw to companies is that they provide a continuous revenue stream, which is a boon to an industry that typically relied on a single upfront cost to cover their expenses, not only in developing the product but also maintenance (e.g. patches and updates). What's more, this revenue almost strictly follows a sharply decreasing curve as a majority of the sales come in near release, with a trickle following after that and peaking on special events like sales, DLC releases and other promotions, although games can have a different rate of popularity - especially multiplayer games with a steady playerbase.

 

Which is a problem, because video games - even small, indie titles - can be expensive to develop. You have a customer base, you have people who've already put money into buying your game, what can one do to lessen the sting of development? Or, if you're already bringing in enough money, what can one do get more of these Andrew Jackson cocaine snorters from people who have shown willing to fork over their money for your products? Enter DLCs, expansions, microtransactions and a whole slew of buzzwords. In short, your fans give you more money so you can give them more content, except without the overhead of creating a new game from scratch, so it's a little lighter on your wallet while making their wallets lights in the process...win/win, right? You get money, they get content, everyone's happy, no whining needed, right?

 

Well, no. Only if you look at it in a naïve, simplistic way. Let's look at how money influences content, shall we?

 

 

---

 

B2P

First up, B2P AKA buy-to-play, the traditional method of owning video games for your console or PC. A single payment, and you access all the content the game has to offer, insomuch as one will usually have content accessible via progression or other methods of in-game unlocking. The full experience, so to say. How does this affect the game's content? The developer will need to develop the content such that the game is attractive to potential buyers, and such that reviews and word-of-mouth will be a boon to advertising the game and shifting copies. This can have the adverse affect of encouraging lopsided early game focus, since that's what the majority of players will spend time in, as playtime by player also follows a sharply decreasing curve, with a large amount of people only picking up a game for an hour or two. This makes the game seem more attractive than it actually is, and it's not uncommon to see games with dense, detailed and flashy intro areas contrasted with more standard sections for the rest of the game. B2P also discourages maintenance and free updates, since those won't directly bring in money unless it's patching out something that's stopping people from wanting to buy the game, and instead will cost development time and money for little tangible return.

 

In short, B2P encourages developers to make good games, but doesn't have much incentive in maintaining the games once they're released.

 

DLC

Hoo boy howdy, we're getting closer now. Paid DLC is similar to buying a B2P game in that the content has to be appealing to players, so the developer must create it to be, well, good content; not just look good, but play good for word of mouth and reviews. Cost to the consumer is usually a lot less than the cost of the game, though this depends on the DLC and how stingy the developer is, as the cost to the developer of adding new content to an existing game is lessened by the lack of, well, game they have to create - just the content. This also encourages developers to maintain their game at a boon to players who won't even buy the DLC, so that players will be playing long enough to find the DLC appealing and still fun instead of an addition to a buggy game.

 

Unfortunately in multiplayer games, DLC in the form of map packs frequently splits the playerbase, and depending on how additional maps are handled can often kill a game's popularity by too much splitting - Battlefield is notorious for this due to how the maps are handled. This can still be handled well such as the likes of Payday 2, where people who don't have the map DLC can still play the maps - only the host needs to DLC (Payday 2's content monetisation system is a rather interesting one with a fair bit of history to it, but that's for another time). DLC can also encourage developers to cut out appealing content that would ordinarily be in the base game and put it behind a paywall of DLC to make the DLC more lucrative, as well as make DLC for fairly pointless things to exploit a monetarily challenged playerbase.

 

In short, DLC is good for the longevity of a game, although has a couple drawbacks in terms of how content is divided and how the DLC is priced.

 

Now, what's the point in going over these? As a comparison to fun, fun content warping that microtransactions can bring you, of course! There's many more revenue models, but these will do for a baseline.

 

 

---

 

Microtransactions

Microtransactions are generally the most divorced from content - traditional forms of transactions have you directly purchasing a fair amount of extra content, whilst microtransactions swing more to the cosmetic or in-game currency side of things, as well as small pieces of content like a single weapon or boosts like double XP. The argument goes, the developers can rake in cash from microtransactions and be free to develop whatever content they feel will keep the playerbase engaged, abstracted away from clunky packaged content, plus all the free content is available to everyone; no playerbase split, no content hidden behind paywalls sans the smaller microtransactions. Right? lmao

 

There's different forms of microtransactions, of course - let's look at the most positively accepted by gamers: purely cosmetic microtransactions, a la TF2, CSGO, DoTA 2, Overwatch, and others. What happens when the main revenue stream is from cosmetics? Development focus gets shifted to cosmetics, of course. Sure, they'll still update the game here and there, but when you have such a locked-down fanbase, you can get away with a fair bit of neglect in comparison to the amount of money you're raking in...the most obvious culprit being TF2. Raking in an obscene amount of money from Mann. Co in-game purchases and fees from marketplaces transactions, the game effectively prints money without the devs having to do anything, and do nothing they do. Most updates are geared towards cosmetics, as I'm sure Valve fans are fond of the constant crate/case releases, and the cosmetics themselves are manufactured to generate the most money as possible - by the age old method of gambling. Crate/case openings are the gamer's slot machine - it's optional, sure, but so are gambling addictions. Valve has been under fire for turning a blind eye to the ethics of pseudo slot machines that kids love dumping money into, TF2 to most people is a hat simulator, and Valve don't need to make any more games because they're printing money just fine. As we can see here, microtransactions may have helped feed the community, but there's a lot to be desired in terms of gameplay content...and that's the best version of microtransactions! Can developers go against this path of least resistance? Yes, technically, but it's the path heavily favoured with this revenue stream. We're not here for technicals, we're here for what actually happens, and Valve happened.

 

Let's swing to the other extreme: P2W. I shouldn't have to tell you how badly this affects video games using it; content is designed entirely around benefiting those who plink coins into the game, and encouraging the plebs to do the same to get an edge on their plebeian contemporaries. Free content is only enough to draw in unsuspecting freeloaders looking for a free bit of fun, enticing them with the prospect of artificially getting better at the game just by putting in a little money. "Good" content gets locked behind these paywalls, gameplay is geared entirely towards those who pay, and it's basically one big money-funnelling power fantasy instead of making good content, though I highly doubt anyone was pointing to P2W as a bastion for the realm of free content. Moving on...

 

GTAO Style Microtransactions

1.5k words later, here we are, you ungrateful f*ck.

 

The gist is that it follows the model of having in-game currency, and then microtransactions that give you more in-game currency. It's important to note here that GTAO, unlike other microtransaction-laden games, has only this; no boosts, no fast-tracks, no paywalls. This makes things simpler, plus things like fast-tracking mostly apply to this bit as well, so we can throw two stones at one bird. The idea is that in wanting you to use in-game currency, the developers need to create content that encourages the player to spend, to make their microtransactions more desirable; thus, they create lots of high-quality desirable content that only has an in-game paywall so that the devs can get some dolla from people wanting to take a little funding shortcut. This effect, of course, gets massively exaggerated due to the necessity for companies to feed their investors and higher-ups, and even the seemingly self-conscious devs find it to be the only path worth taking. How? What does this mean?

 

Let's go back to the start of this little subsection: microtransactions, especially currency models, are divorced from content. This encourages developers to focus on the currency and microtransaction aspect, with content being their bastard child chained to their leg. You can probably see where this is going. In trying to maintain a game, what with the flashy updates released every few months with new motion capture, voice acting and advertising, there needs to be a necessary focus on the microtransactions to be able to sustain everything, thus gameplay needs to be designed around the purchase of microtransactions. Oh dear, this is what happens when you have gameplay-affecting microtransactions, they...affect the gameplay!! (bloody hell, calm down). If it isn't, then people won't buy microtransactions nearly as much, and that either means the game is unsustainable monetarily or the investors demand more blood. So here's what you get: gameplay designed around microtransactions. How does this manifest itself? First of all, currency needs to be desirable. Content becomes hidden behind large expenses, chintzy overpriced content appears so as to more efficiently drain people's money, and purchased content becomes necessary so as to elevate its position, resulting in rampant power creep. You want to win races? You want to kill people quickly? You want to defend yourself? You want a fast car? Gib monies. Fun content invariably gets shuttered, because what's the point in currency microtransactions if people can have all the fun without needing currency?

 

Okay, not sooo bad, you just need a bit of moolah and the free content is yours, right? Ignoring the power creep and overpriced chintz, all good? Hell no, because the gameplay is designed around making it as slow as possible to generate currency. I mean really, it's a similar situation to P2W, especially with the power creep - do you think there would be any point, any desire to pay for microtransactions if the shiny content could be gained by any old proletariat? This isn't a design decision remember, this is a necessity borne out of using currency microtransactions as your revenue stream. You need people to buy them, greed or not, because you have rent to pay. So out goes fundamental game design, out goes the fun-first aspect - we need to build this pyramid out of money. You want money? You have to invest money. Trying to make money? Here's free roam content, people can destroy your money at the drop of a missile-shaped-hat. The game turns into a grind for money, because the alternative is being able to enjoy the content without using currency - which again, bypasses the whole microtransaction feedback loop going on. It has to be about making money, and as any gamer would know, there's only so much you can do to make repetitive content fun over a long period of time. They've necessitated time as your purchase since that's the only thing a gamer can give for free, and it makes microtransactions all the more lucrative - you can bypass alllll those hours of grinding to get that fun toy just by wiring us £40! Aren't we kind? Aren't you glad you have a choice here, to just bypass all the gameplay! Never mind that the grindy gameplay was artificially borne out of microstransaction payment in the first place, never mind that the entire existence of the game is to facilitate you giving us money even though it's technically free after purchasing the game.

 

So here you are. A game where the main gameplay for the proles is a grind, an artificial grind, a grind whose sole purpose is to make you, at least somewhat, consider buying microtransactions. Because if it didn't, then the devs wouldn't be able to pay rent. It's a vicious cycle that isn't even necessarily the machinations of an evil dev, just them falling victim to the gameplay loop forced upon them by the seemingly harmless decision to use currency microtransactions. Fun, aren't they?

 

What's better is the concept of whales. In the gaming industry, they've consistently found that a large majority of their microtransaction revenue comes from a small percentage of their playerbase, players who buy lots of microtransactions - these are known as whales. Microtransactions have to - almost have to - be tailored towards these folks, because again, dev needs rent money, and this is just a fact of where the money comes from. They will buy your microtransactions, you just need to maximise profit out of them so you can pay rent. How? Make them more expensive, make their in-game influence as little as possible so you need as many microtransactions as possible for a desired result. This is a little conundrum that results in "microtransactions" equalling £40 or whatever for a single in-game vehicle. It's not the dev's fault necessarily, that's just how microtransactions work.

 

Them there's the valve-ish nature of gambling addictions. Make you feel like what you're doing is worthwhile, artificially restrict the delivery of content to make the player "gamble" for as long as possible, throwing away their time into the random nature of free roam lobbies and the endless grind of grinds, for shiny trinkets that are made to feel necessary.

 

 

---

 

And there you have it. Microtransactions necessitate gameplay focused around microtransactions, which heavily degrades the actual content. Sure, it's "free content", but it's sh*t content. It's corporate-focused content, not customer-focused content like DLCs. Microtransaction content is inherently worse content, if it's even content worth caring about; the guise of "free content" is meaningless in this case. The argument that you can grind to get it or you have the choice of paying to skip, is an artificial choice masking the completely pointless nature of the grind itself. There's a vast difference between natural game design in progression and reward (which is fun), and microtransaction-shifting grinds.

 

I want to play a game, not a Skinner box.

 

and kindly f*ck your free content

Edited June 22, 2017 by RedDagger

[DOUGL4S1]

So, is this the future of gaming?

 

Can anyone give me a time machine that goes back to 1990? I want some good games, and some people killed in an 'accident'. I swear I'll give it back to you in a second or two.

Edited June 21, 2017 by DOUGL4S1

[Prince_Polaris]

Man, you put it all perfectly into words. I'd try to add something meaningful, but honestly, you hit everything right on the nose! As for me, I can't afford Cark Shards, so I'll sit myself in the F2P-ish corner and keep going at it.

 

Edit: Lol thank goodness for modders, but I worry about when the day comes that games use the GTAO business model and there's no mods to cheat past it...

Edited January 2, 2018 by Prince_Polaris

[Rewas]

If I ever write an essay about video games, I'll reference this topic tbh.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Rewas

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

Very awesome post. Should be a sticky in the Online forum.

[D9fred95]

Inb4 Ragedandcaged says "That's your opinion."

[DoomAkuma]

Very awesome post. Should be a sticky in the Online forum.

Agreed, hits all the points addressed in the Micro/shark card arguments and addressed them perfectly.

[chronic lumbago]

Great post, Dagger. Thanks for taking your time writing this. It's a shame people still let themselves being ripped of and exploited by the developers.

 

A few days ago, I've witnessed with my own eyes, IRL, a friend opening CoD Black Ops 3 loot boxes. Before that I gave him a speech how microtransactions ruin the playerbase and give the developers undeserved money. I had him invite me over because I wanted to laugh at him how he just wasted his money.

 

But you know what? The loot boxes contain almost purely consmetic items, such as skins and sh*t. The weapons you can get aren't P2W either, because you still need to reach a certain rank to unlock the weapon for online matches.

 

The difference here is that BO3 and a lot of other titles charge you for loot boxes with purely optional cosmetic items. GTAO shamelessly stopped adding the "updates" to singleplayer as soon as they saw the profit. The "updates" are large blocks of concent. One person could easily pay twice the amount of the game's price for it and still not experience the whole "update".

 

And they still call this sh*t "updates"

 

The paywalls are probably the largest I've ever witnessed in gaming ever. I spend quite a lot of my hard earned cash on gaming and I enjoyed GTAV. Still enjoy it occassionaly. But I simply refuse to buy anything because the whole thing is a massive scam and a total ripoff. We've discussee this a bit in the gaming chat cafe and after reading your post I can confirm, for myself at least that people who actually support this should get themselves checked or leave gaming alltogether. The industry would be a better place.

[Mr.Arrow]

They should follow Rainbow six siege's model. No pay to win or whatever the ridiculous in-game currency price bullsh*t.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Mr.Arrow

[Jason]

When it comes to things like loot boxes, card packs and things of that ilk it's always amazed me at how much of a free pass it all gets because it's "not technically gambling". When you have to put "not technically" before something it's a sign that yea, it probably is what you're saying it's not. You put something in, you get something out. It's gambling, pure and simple.

 

But the real caveat here is that with micro transactions the house not only always wins, they create the rules of the game too. The odds, the result, the price of your ticket, it's all decided by the developers. In a bookies you can see the odds on screen and you know that the ones taking you're money aren't the ones deciding the outcome of the bet, in a casino most of the games (there's a reason why you should avoid the slots) have pre-established odds, on the internet at least. But not with gaming, with gaming you're relying on the developer created computer code to be completely functional, weighted reasonably and fair and have no glitches or bugs that can hamper your chance. Basically, you're giving them your money and saying to them "please don't f*ck me in the arse". But guess what? They all figured out they can do it anyway and you wouldn't even know - there is ZERO transparency, there's no regulation. It's gambling for the new generation, kids are growing up saving their pennies to gamble away on Fifa Ultimate Team packs. It's mad.

[luisniko]

Inb4:

- you don't have to buy shark card

- for longevity!

- people nowadays don't wanna spend a little time to unlock. Rockstar want you to grind!

- Rockstar don't want you to grind. They want you to have fun! You should not grind!

- but the 'DLC' are free!

- GTA Online is free!

- Rockstar said paid DLC will separate playerbase

- without currency and inflated price, GTA online wouldn't be alive until now

- (add more defense here)

 

Anyway, needless to say, I agree with your post. This post makes you look like you're gun-totting at zombies. But what's the point? They're already 'dead'.

 

You won't open their mind, you won't change their mind.

Edited June 21, 2017 by luisniko

[Leftist Bastard]

I honest to god thing despite all that gaming is at an all time high.

[Static]

I honest to god thing despite all that gaming is at an all time high.

 

Care to elaborate?

[El Dildo]

look, I love you Red Fox, but I'm not gonna' read all that.

 

for what's worth: I concur

[chronic lumbago]

 

I honest to god thing despite all that gaming is at an all time high.

Care to elaborate?

I think he means in terms of technology, popularity and social acceptance. Games back then were also great but they didn't need DLC and loot boxes to be great. Today it's more about business than ever before.

 

Half finished games get released with DLC plans and premium concent is often just as advertized as the game itself. People even consider checking the DLC plans for a game before buying it.

 

Developers want to keep the money flowing after release and the cool concent is saved for DLC most of the time.

[Mister Pink]

Long but great post. That's what I've always thought about Microtransactions and you put it down so nicely. I would much rather paid and sizable DLC. I don't want to be reminded of the element of a purchase in my videogame, a time when I shouldn't be worrying about spending money on a console that all ready has my card details in it. You see, I don't only play one game and all these games want a piece of the action after I've all ready paid hard-earned cash to the thing in the first place. So the whole thing is going to the sh*tter.

 

These companies should be shamed and shunned by the gaming community.

[El Dildo]

These companies should be shamed and shunned by the gaming community.

but they won't be.

see, the problem is that we're just anon dudes here on this (basically) anon forum, ranting to each other in the abyss...

 

RedDagger makes a great post with great research but it's preaching to the choir AKA falling on deaf ears.

someone needs to take this information and give a f/cking speech at the next Consumer Electronic Show in Vegas or the next E3 in LA. where are these kinds of hard-hitting articles on influential gaming news outlets? most big industry gaming reporters are too attached to the industry itself (the access, the exclusivity) to risk doing any kind of important journalism like this.

 

we have real issues potentially threatening the future of video gaming but right now there's so much money wrapped up in the whole venture that nobody wishes to rock the boat.

 

also, "videogamers" as a group of people tend to have little backbone.

they talk about boycotting certain companies or certain developers. they get ripped off and vow NEVER AGAIN... yet the cash just keeps on rolling in. the games keep on selling. nobody is actually following through with their little revolts and so these executives have little reason to change their policies. for example everyone is so understandably upset with Take2's actions against the GTA modding community. so everyone raced over to their Steam review page and gave GTAV a bunch of negative reviews. AFTER the game has already sold billions of dollars. smooth move guys. way to hit em' where it hurts.

 

if that's the best strategy we've got, we're going to lose this battle.

Edited June 22, 2017 by El Diablo

[Oldsport]

Im sure a good 95% of gamers feel this way, micro-transactions suck. I remember back before consoles had internet, when you bought a game that was it, youd have a complete package right there. Nowadays its just not the same. We can blame ea, activision and take2 for this

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

Im sure a good 95% of gamers feel this way, micro-transactions suck. I remember back before consoles had internet, when you bought a game that was it, youd have a complete package right there. Nowadays its just not the same. We can blame ea, activision and take2 for this

Should blame Valve first though, they were the first to bring them to paid games with CS GO. Atleast as far as I remember.

[Static]

 

Im sure a good 95% of gamers feel this way, micro-transactions suck. I remember back before consoles had internet, when you bought a game that was it, youd have a complete package right there. Nowadays its just not the same. We can blame ea, activision and take2 for this

Should blame Valve first though, they were the first to bring them to paid games with CS GO. Atleast as far as I remember.

 

 

You're both wrong. GO didn't release til August 2012. Mean while Maple Story, NA release date May 2005, and a few other Nexon MMOs had already had micro-transactions for years. Blame Nexon or MMOs in genreal if you want to blame anyone, or maybe, just maybe, all of us "gamers" who supported them.

[Mister Pink]

 

These companies should be shamed and shunned by the gaming community.

but they won't be.

see, the problem is that we're just anon dudes here on this (basically) anon forum, ranting to each other in the abyss...

 

RedDagger makes a great post with great research but it's preaching to the choir AKA falling on deaf ears.

someone needs to take this information and give a f/cking speech at the next Consumer Electronic Show in Vegas or the next E3 in LA. where are these kinds of hard-hitting articles on influential gaming news outlets? most big industry gaming reporters are too attached to the industry itself (the access, the exclusivity) to risk doing any kind of important journalism like this.

 

we have real issues potentially threatening the future of video gaming but right now there's so much money wrapped up in the whole venture that nobody wishes to rock the boat.

 

also, "videogamers" as a group of people tend to have little backbone.

they talk about boycotting certain companies or certain developers. they get ripped off and vow NEVER AGAIN... yet the cash just keeps on rolling in. the games keep on selling. nobody is actually following through with their little revolts and so these executives have little reason to change their policies. for example everyone is so understandably upset with Take2's actions against the GTA modding community. so everyone raced over to their Steam review page and gave GTAV a bunch of negative reviews. AFTER the game has already sold billions of dollars. smooth move guys. way to hit em' where it hurts.

 

if that's the best strategy we've got, we're going to lose this battle.

 

 

What's the alternative then? Sit back, do nothing? Have zero voice as apposed to some?

 

I'm not saying MTs will be abolished completely by customers have shifted their consumer mentality before. Just because they're rampantly as viral as AIDs in Somalia right now doesn't mean they can't implode.

 

Still hasn't stopped me from giving to buying microtransaction bullsh*t. So, as a gamer who spends a good deal of money on games, I'll never buy in to it. And I am following my own little boycott. I wont deny myself a great game because of sh*tty business practices. I don't buy new games that have prominent microtransactions. If a game has crappy ones like GTA Online or more recently for me Deus Ex, I'll buy it second hand for cheaper. I'm doing it for RDR2.

 

Companies like CDPR had two nice valuable DLC's they released for The Witcher 3 and a few free downloads. CDPR were praised by their fans and critics alike for how they handled it. The customer experience left people feeling great. That game and their DLC felt like value for money. All it takes is someone big like Rockstar or CDPR to lead the way in the great customer experience and others may follow suit. If there's enough bad press, if enough gaming media gets on the anti-microtransaction wagon, then publishers/devs will be forced to change. Gaming channels like the Jim Sterlings and Pretty Good Gaming are super vocal about their disdain for microtransactions.

 

It's been done before. Look at Xbox now compared to 3 or 4 years ago.

 

I know there's so much money to be made in them but there has to be other, more innovate, fair and valuable ways to do it and I'm very optimistic that an esteemed company will come a long will bring a new model where gamers don't feel like the game is rigged around MTs and generally pissing on the overall experience.

 

 

 

It's a pity because Rockstar were one of those devs that I always thought they were a gamer's developer. A bit punk, a bit anti-establishment, with a bit heart. Now, I see them just like another soulless corporate outfit EA or Activision, just different games and still cruising on old street cred. CDPR have my attention though. They're in that rising phase, hungry to prove themselves and the other places seem to just stagnate at the top, trying to milk the cow for all it's worth.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Mister Pink

[ClaudeSpeed1911]

 

 

Im sure a good 95% of gamers feel this way, micro-transactions suck. I remember back before consoles had internet, when you bought a game that was it, youd have a complete package right there. Nowadays its just not the same. We can blame ea, activision and take2 for this

Should blame Valve first though, they were the first to bring them to paid games with CS GO. Atleast as far as I remember.

 

 

You're both wrong. GO didn't release til August 2012. Mean while Maple Story, NA release date May 2005, and a few other Nexon MMOs had already had micro-transactions for years. Blame Nexon or MMOs in genreal if you want to blame anyone, or maybe, just maybe, all of us "gamers" who supported them.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

[dudclub55]

Sooo... why isn't this in the Online section?

[Rewas]

Sooo... why isn't this in the Online section?

1. This is more about microtransactions in general.
2. Online section is cancer.

[dudclub55]

 

Sooo... why isn't this in the Online section?

1. This is more about microtransactions in general.
2. Online section is cancer.

 

 

I know that, but I feel like this would've been nice to bring to the attention of the Online shills. You're right though, most wouldn't read any of this anyways.

[chronic lumbago]

 

 

Sooo... why isn't this in the Online section?

• This is more about microtransactions in general.
• Online section is cancer.

I know that, but I feel like this would've been nice to bring to the attention of the Online shills. You're right though, most wouldn't read any of this anyways.

Bad idea. It would be funny to see shark card fanboys defend R* though

[Jason]

 

 

Im sure a good 95% of gamers feel this way, micro-transactions suck. I remember back before consoles had internet, when you bought a game that was it, youd have a complete package right there. Nowadays its just not the same. We can blame ea, activision and take2 for this

Should blame Valve first though, they were the first to bring them to paid games with CS GO. Atleast as far as I remember.

 

 

You're both wrong. GO didn't release til August 2012. Mean while Maple Story, NA release date May 2005, and a few other Nexon MMOs had already had micro-transactions for years. Blame Nexon or MMOs in genreal if you want to blame anyone, or maybe, just maybe, all of us "gamers" who supported them.

 

 

Microtransactions have been around for ever but we can probably attribute their current form to Valve's Team Fortress 2 and it's crate system (2010) and Fifa's Ultimate Team (2009ish). Battlefield, CoD, Overwatch, Rocket League and about 50 other games I could list all have one thing in common: They all have a crate system that is identical to the one TF2 popularised. Fifa's Ultimate Team also played a big and often forgotten role too, it's probably the game that kickstarted the whole "games as a live service" thing, it's making EA nearly if not over $1billion/year alone now so it shouldn't be surprising that every other major developer wanted in on that in whatever way they can.

 

There were games that might have done similar or identical things before those two but none had the influence they did, they're both hugely popular games made by two of the biggest developers in the world and when one of the big boys has a good idea the rest of the industry tends to follow.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Jason

[Static]

 

Microtransactions have been around for ever but we can probably attribute their current form to Valve's Team Fortress 2 and it's crate system (2010) and Fifa's Ultimate Team (2009ish). Battlefield, CoD, Overwatch, Rocket League and about 50 other games I could list all have one thing in common: They all have a crate system that is identical to the one TF2 popularised. Fifa's Ultimate Team also played a big and often forgotten role too, it's probably the game that kickstarted the whole "games as a live service" thing, it's making EA nearly if not over $1billion/year alone now so it shouldn't be surprising that every other major developer wanted in on that in whatever way they can.

 

There were games that might have done similar or identical things before those two but none had the influence they did, they're both hugely popular games made by two of the biggest developers in the world and when one of the big boys has a good idea the rest of the industry tends to follow.

 

 

Not sure how any of that negates my rebuttal to Valve, EA, Activision, and/or T2 being the the first to use MTs. Sure they made them popular but that doesn't mean they created the concept of MTS and there are still plenty more games with MTs that don't use a loot box/crate/chest/pack gimmick than there are that do, Just look at mobile gaming. Which games with MTs was most influential is a completely separate point.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Static

[RedDagger]

I know that, but I feel like this would've been nice to bring to the attention of the Online shills. You're right though, most wouldn't read any of this anyways.

One of the relevant threads is going in circles where people are adamant in their ignorance over what's essentially factual information - if a thread is going in circles around a simple factual point, I can't see them giving a crap about what I've said here without pulling out some thought-terminating cliche.

 

I mean, most of the online section are aight, but a lot of the more vocal people just spoil it.

Edited June 22, 2017 by RedDagger

[Jason]

Not sure how any of that negates my rebuttal to Valve, EA, Activision, and/or T2 being the the first to use MTs. Sure they made them popular but that doesn't mean they created the concept of MTS and there are still plenty more games with MTs that don't use a loot box/crate/chest/pack gimmick than there are that do, Just look at mobile gaming. Which games with MTs was most influential is a completely separate point.

 

It wasn't meant to negate, but:

 

You're both wrong. GO didn't release til August 2012. Mean while Maple Story, NA release date May 2005, and a few other Nexon MMOs had already had micro-transactions for years. Blame Nexon or MMOs in genreal if you want to blame anyone, or maybe, just maybe, all of us "gamers" who supported them.

 

The concept of microtransactions isn't really down to any one dev in particular, they've been around for yonks, but their popularity and their most common forms can be pin pointed down to a couple of games, such as the ones I named. I wasn't correcting you on who made them a thing, but if we're to blame a particular developer for the sh*tshow we see today we're looking at more well known western AAA developers like Valve and EA, not Nexon.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Jason