Micro-Transactions in Fully Priced Games.

_Puma_

Would like to get other peoples opinions on the new wave of games that are being released recently that seem to have embraced the micro-transaction business model , while still retaining the price tag of a fully priced traditional game. This excellent article from Eurogamer provides a bit of context.

We are not talking about Free to Play games here like League of Legends or DOTA 2 but full priced games that also include some sort of Micro transaction model.

This type of business model has been brought to the masses with the recent release of the Xbox One and its exclusive games like Forza 5 and Ryse and apparently the upcoming Gran Turismo 6 on the PS3.

Micro-transactions in fully priced games have been around, in various forms, for a while on the PC. Some games like Guild Wars 2 utilise in them in a non-gameplay affecting manner, by using the real money currency to allow you to buy cosmetic items or quality of life items(Expanded storage etc) while not affecting gameplay. This is ok in my books but a very carefully drawn line must be made on what to charge for in this model for it to work.

However other games like Company of Heroes 2 allow micro transactions to open up new avenues of gameplay. Micro-Transaction to purchase commanders that allow you to play a game in a completely different and sometimes overpowered manner. Certain "Good" abilities,(That are for the majority been in the game already) have been bundled together in these Micro transaction commanders so that they are now the logical choice to win a game if your opponent is using the non micro-transaction commanders. This model has seemed to have driven off most of the community that came over from CoH1 and has driven a wedge between the Developers and their fans. Active players have dropped off significantly since the introduction of the micro-transaction commanders.

I fully appreciate that developers are looking for ways of increasing their revenue stream to offset an increase in costs, but should a line be drawn somewhere when we have already paid the RRP for a game? "Just don't buy them" I hear you say, but when you have no other way to access the content, that you have paid full price for, or large timegated hurdles(Apparently it will take >400 hours grinding currency to unlock all the cars in Forza 5 without the micro transactions) are people annoyed? Do you go ahead and purchase these micro-transaction because you enjoy the game and don't mind forking out more money to experience it in full?

super_furry

It's stuff like this that would put me off buying a game. Seems to be endemic to the Xbox One's new launch titles and I know that someone worked out if you were to pay to unlock all the cars in Forza 5 - a cheat that would have been common in the PS2/Xbox era - it would cost you €2,000 ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91029704#post91029704 )

It becomes a real problem like in Forza 5 when content that you feel you've already paid for is held behind such a high time sink that paying more feels like it's your only option.

Shiminay

I just don't play those sorts of games - it's the only actual way to make your voice heard on these matters.

It sounds like a broken record at this stage, but as long as people keep buying these things and the companies keep making money on them, they won't stop.

Zero-Cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGGfwPIykAo

_Puma_

I agree that Forza 5 seem to be one of the most nefarious examples of this model at work, but do people think that games like Guild wars 2(It is a MMO so it may lend itself to the model) are acceptable or simply Micro transactions are out and out bad? Is there a way to provide some sort of micro transaction model in a primarily single player game like Forza 5 without upsetting balance or timegating content?

Danger781

I'm perfectly OK with micro transactions when the game is otherwise free to play. I mean, the developers need to get paid for their work. The ideas you mentioned that have been implemented in games such as Guild Wars are great. Giving people the option of purchasing add-ons that do not affect game play or fairness.

However when it comes to the implementation they chose for COH I think that is terrible. They've made it an pay-to-win game that you must pay-to-play. This sounds like nothing but greed to me. Shame on them.

ancapailldorcha

super_furry wrote: »

It's stuff like this that would put me off buying a game. Seems to be endemic to the Xbox One's new launch titles and I know that someone worked out if you were to pay to unlock all the cars in Forza 5 - a cheat that would have been common in the PS2/Xbox era - it would cost you €2,000 ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91029704#post91029704 )

It becomes a real problem like in Forza 5 when content that you feel you've already paid for is held behind such a high time sink that paying more feels like it's your only option.

You could buy a real car for less!

As Shiminay has said, as long as people support this, the publishers will continue it as well as expand on it. When a game is free to play, it's different. Same principle as a Ryanair flight. It's so cheap I don't mind them flouting tat at me. When I play premium fare, it's just plain annoying.

penev10

Pay 2 Win is annoying in any context whether F2P or full priced games.

Nody

DLC, expansion or micro transaction; all the same as far as I'm concerned and I'll buy it if the combination of game, the new content /benefit is worth it for the price charged and I don't care if it's free to play or fully priced (from my experience free to play games tend to end up more expensive vs. fully priced once with micro transactions anyway as the F2P style allows more justification for inclusion).

Personally I'd not bother in a PvP game if the additions have significant impact on the game (Word of Tanks have Tier 8 tanks that are weaker then a fully researched Tier 8 tank but make more money; as the game goes to Tier 10 tanks so the premium tanks don't have a PvP impact of note) but pure PvE games I don't mind them at all.

sarumite

If the games like Forza and GT were simply to remove the content from the main game and sell it as DLC would that be better?

(obviously you get into the whole DLC discussion but that is perhaps for another thread)

ShadowHearth

The whole way how MS treated day one dlc and micro transaction in triple A titles put me off Xbox one completely. If I would have bought 500eu console and 65eu game, then pop it up and be greated with 60eu dlc, then I would be pissed off. On top of that I would have payed 120eu for a game, which is built around free to play model and have even greater treadmill mode then it would normally would.

I know some people will say - well, don't buy micro transaction stuff. Well all is good and nice with that stratememt, up until you see that developers start making 60eu games around free to play model. The design of game it self suffers. So even by ignoring micro transactions you get lesser product and paying 60eu +.

It is scary for me where gaming model is going. Day one rip off dlc, horrible free to play models, 65eu games with micro transaction models.... Scary...

_Puma_

Here is how I see it. Forza 5 and Ryse seem to have the Micro-transactions as an after thought, forced on the game by publishers to increase revenue potential.

Company of Heroes 2 was a great game, although missing some features that would be considered essential for this type of game. Maybe it was time constraints that led to them been omitted. It seems they have been slowly adding in these features(through patches) and the development work is being funded for by these Micro-transactions, but the hard truth is that game will not remain balanced with these commanders and the game was incomplete when it was released. A pity because if the game was released as a finished product I would have no problem paying more money for traditional expansion packs opening up further gameplay options while keeping them balanced with the content already there.

Guild wars 2 seems to have the Business model well thought out and allows for the game to be expanded on while retaining the core experience without having to put in more money.

The question can the new wave of games with Micro transactions allow for this expansion through traditional expansion content? Is there even a need for the micro transactions and is it simply price gouging to increase Revenue potential or are these funds going to be used to expand the game in future? In my opinion I highly doubt it for the likes of Ryse and Forza 5, we will just simply see another full priced sequel in the future and the first iteration will cease to be supported.

_Puma_

Nody wrote: »

DLC, expansion or micro transaction; all the same as far as I'm concerned and I'll buy it if the combination of game, the new content /benefit is worth it for the price charged and I don't care if it's free to play or fully priced (from my experience free to play games tend to end up more expensive vs. fully priced once with micro transactions anyway as the F2P style allows more justification for inclusion).

Personally I'd not bother in a PvP game if the additions have significant impact on the game (Word of Tanks have Tier 8 tanks that are weaker then a fully researched Tier 8 tank but make more money; as the game goes to Tier 10 tanks so the premium tanks don't have a PvP impact of note) but pure PvE games I don't mind them at all.

I tend to agree to a point on this, it comes down to value for money at the end of the day. But for a pure PvE Single player game you could argue that you are merely paying full price for an incomplete version of the game. Day one DLC screams content that was cut to increase revenue potential. You now have to ask is the original game complete without it? Mass effect was another example of this, entire missions and characters cut out from the original game and added in as DLC.

COYVB

Once the game isn't broken without microtransactions I'm fine with it. I've never bought, nor will I ever buy, DLC, so anything that's not on the disc, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist and I treat the game as is. Cars in Forza 5 you have to buy? Doesn't affect me in the slightest, as far as I'm concerned those cars simply aren't in the game and I make do with the (huge) selection that is

_Puma_

COYVB wrote: »

Once the game isn't broken without microtransactions I'm fine with it. I've never bought, nor will I ever buy, DLC, so anything that's not on the disc, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist and I treat the game as is. Cars in Forza 5 you have to buy? Doesn't affect me in the slightest, as far as I'm concerned those cars simply aren't in the game and I make do with the (huge) selection that is

I can understand that approach but the problem with Forza is these Cars are Timegated to a ridiculous level so that they are only realistically attainable by Micro transactions. In fact all the cars are linked to this currency so to unlock all the cars that were attainable in previous iterations of the game you need to put in 2000 hours of grinding currency without micro transactions. Pretty hard to ignore them then.

COYVB

_Puma_ wrote: »

I can understand that approach but the problem with Forza is these Cars are Timegated to a ridiculous level so that they are only realistically attainable by Micros transactions. In fact all the cars are linked to this currency so to unlock all the cars that were attainable in previous iterations of the game you need to put in 2000 hours of grinding currency without micro transactions. Pretty hard to ignore them then.

I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to ignore them TBH. Sure, some of them are unattainable, realistically, but I'm pretty sure I'll survive without them. It's not going to break the game for me

calex71

I don't like to be made feel that I paid full price for a game and stuff that could have been put in was deliberately taken out for extra profit on day one as in some last gen games with their 33kb DLC that was already on the disc.

I also don't like paid content that given an advantage to people in multiplayer, maybe in a free to play scenario it's borderline ok. but it unbalances the game and alienates players.

What I don't have any problem with at all is map packs and dlc, most recent example for me was Borderlands 2 must spent over €120 on the game and dlc but it was (mostly) worth it because of the extra time I got from a game I enjoyed. I also have no issue with microtransactions in single player games that give xp boosts, additional cars, weapons or what ever, people are free to take or leave them as long as the game hasn't been pillaged of all the best ones and them to be resold later, is that the issue with Forza 5? There were tonnes of car packs in the previous games but the games never felt like they were missing any huge amount of good cars on the discs.

Banjo

The Forza cars are only unattainable (for free) if you go after all of them
And that's the mentality of the kind of person who spends a lot of money on DLC and mewties. (μT's - will that catch on?)

Surely this makes your choice of which cars to grind for in Forza far more important because you can't have them all? To be honest, there's part of me that quite likes that, after unlocking the a huge chunk of cars in NFS on the WiiU after aimlessly driving around for about 20 minutes. Would that not make you more likely to spend time on the cars you get instead of driving them all once, then settling on a handful of favourites?

I'm happy to pay extra for perks. I'm not happy if someone who's not as good as me at a game but has more money to spend can beat me. Having said that, there's a special feeling you can only get when your poor mewtie-less but capable self defeats some perked-up no-talent spanner. In your face, moneybags!

_Puma_

calex71 wrote: »

I don't like to be made feel that I paid full price for a game and stuff that could have been put in was deliberately taken out for extra profit on day one as in some last gen games with their 33kb DLC that was already on the disc.

I also don't like paid content that given an advantage to people in multiplayer, maybe in a free to play scenario it's borderline ok. but it unbalances the game and alienates players.

What I don't have any problem with at all is map packs and dlc, most recent example for me was Borderlands 2 must spent over €120 on the game and dlc but it was (mostly) worth it because of the extra time I got from a game I enjoyed. I also have no issue with microtransactions in single player games that give xp boosts, additional cars, weapons or what ever, people are free to take or leave them as long as the game hasn't been pillaged of all the best ones and them to be resold later, is that the issue with Forza 5? There were tonnes of car packs in the previous games but the games never felt like they were missing any huge amount of good cars on the discs.

Not quiet. The way the game is structured is that all cars are now only attainable through the currency, no more Car rewards. The currency reward has been gimped so that to attain all the cars that were available in other iterations of the game you need to grind currency for 2000 hours without micro transactions. So to access all the content on the disc you need to either pay more money in micro transactions or grind an unattainable amount of hours. On top of that it has been confirmed that car packs will also be released through DLC.

The Borderlands example is a good example of pay to play, pretty much getting value for your money. You could still play and enjoy the core game that the original RRP got you while having the option to get extra content. A subtle but very important difference between the two.

Bordelands (RRP gets you core game unrestricted) with optional DLC through micro Transactions
Forza (RRP gets you restricted core game, unlockable through micro transactions or unatainable time gating) with optional DLC through car pack micro transactions

It is a new business model we are seeing with here with the Xbox one exclusives and to a certain extent some current Pc games.

Sonics2k

In general I have no real issues with micro-transactions, unless they are for the sole benefit of giving players a key advantage over other players in a PvP like game.

A DLC is just like an expansion pack in my mind, and as long as it's a good one for a great game that truly adds more to the product, then I'll probably get it.
As for those New Skin and item packs that do nothing, but cost €19.99, well frankly, fúck them.

johnny_ultimate

Any game that requires a player to grind for hundreds or thousands of hours to unlock all on-disc cars is insulting, cynical game design, point blank. I sincerely doubt the intention behind it is to get the player to think about their car choice more carefully. It's aggressive economising that I hope all players reject so we don't see more of its sort in the future. Of course, I'm in the majority of gamers who don't tend to 100% games anyway, but the option should be fair and achievable if I do fancy unlocking all the content. In all reports I've read Forza has been stripped down from its predecessors to make room for aggressive microtransactions and DLC, and that IMO is pretty unacceptable.

Up until now I've been forgiving of microtransactions like XP boosts or shortcuts for the most part: if you want to buy them, they're there, but the game's core mechanics or balance should not be compromised as a result: you should not suffer because you're unwilling to pay the additional outlay. But the first wave of One games seems like the balance has nastily shifted towards the obnoxious, which is a bitter pill to swallow on top of the already large expense of buying into next gen software and hardware.

It's important IMO to differentiate between substantial DLC and microtransactions, incidentally. I tend to find a lot of the day one or speedy DLC stuff to be b-grade stuff that was better left on the cutting room hard drives (Catwoman in Arkham City, Zaeed in Mass Effect - second hand purchases weren't missing much) so I have yet to have good cause to get truly outraged. Only if core content is absent or mechanics are compromised is the balance unfairly shifted. Xbox One games seem to be walking that line awkwardly.

Oafley Jones

Forza 5's implementation of micro transactions is incredibly cynical . Even if you could ignore the grind; aspects such as Getting an in game invite to an event, only to be brought to a purchase screen is absolutely repugnant to me. Such a shame as 4 was one of the very few driving Sims I've enjoyed.

Potatoeman

It was just another reason for me to avoid dead space three. Its fine for ftp games but paying 60 bucks you expect the full game.
A friend of mine has stopped buying new games as you can wait and get the full thing with dlc later for less.
I find most dlc is just not worth the price. Blooddragon being the exception but it was really a stand alone title.

penev10

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Getting an in game invite to an event, only to be brought to a purchase screen.

Oh good god that's horrendous. I'm glad I haven't experienced anything like that...yet!

In-game shakedowns can feck right off.:mad:

Grimebox

Vote with your wallet folks. I have never purchased anything through micro-transactions because I think its only the beginning of a horrible direction that gaming is taking.

DUBLINHITMAN

Microtransactions are the devils spawn
candycrush is to blame

BloodBath

It's perfectly acceptable in Guild Wars 2 as there is no monthly subscription. Wow charges a monthly subscription and they still do micro transactions.

It's either 1 business model or the other. If in their greed they do both then you don't buy the game to teach them a lesson. It's that simple.

Magill

Are there microtransactions in WoW now too ? Didn't know that... I know they had their online store but it was never advertised in game and was only a couple of ****ty pets/mounts.

Glico Man

Veni Vidi Vici have a piece which describes the Forza farce very well.

Case in point: the Lotus E21 formula one car, one of Forza 5’s new star attractions keenly publicised by Microsoft as this is the first game in the series to feature open wheel racecars. What they failed to mention was the astronomical price of admission. In-game, it costs a whopping 6 million credits. Alternatively, at the time of writing you can buy it for 10,000 tokens – in real world cash, this equates to over £60.00. £60.00 for one digital racecar? That's more expensive than the actual game. No. Just no.

Which is quite frankly insulting to those that bought the game.

ShadowHearth

TB has a thing about it too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpx4R9SY98o

Dravokivich

That's one thing I really can't stand about NFS:Most Wanted.

- Drive around, see a car I might want to switch into, wait... I need to purchase a "bonus pack"!?
- Look through the list of races to do, wait... I need to purchase a "bonus pack"!?
- Look through the challenges per upgrade (PER CAR), wait... I need to purchase a "bonus pack"!?

This was a game I had considered buying, but to get the full affect of it, I would have had to purchase multiple and various miniscule add-ons. I'm glad I got it through PS+

Just seeing Grid2 is on PS+ and it seems to have a similar setup, for cars batched in "Bonus Packs."

Kind of annoyed that it looks like GT6 is going to be doing the same thing, even more than what they did with GT5. The thought of this becoming the norm is insulting to be honest.

There is a big difference between these and the expansion packs of old. When I buy the game, I don't want to have to pay extra for trinkets, or races/games types, item upgrades or what ever that have been clearly left out.