Microtransactions?

[Crashtastic]

So does this game got Microtransactions other than DLC?

[Lars]

Na

[RodHull]

NO and it wont ever have any cause crate aren't money grabbing hacks like a lot of other developers *cough*wolcen*cough*

[vamPhyro]

I think you are mixxing loot boxes with microtransactions on itself, a good example of doing it right is path of exile (IMO), and warframe but lately is kinda meh

[RodHull]

Originally posted by vamPhyro:

I think you are mixxing loot boxes with microtransactions on itself, a good example of doing it right is path of exile (IMO), and warframe but lately is kinda meh

They are free games and as such have earned the right to implement whatever form of earning cash they desire, not my cup of tea but i have nothing against free games selling stuff they have to earn a living somehow.

Pay2play games though no, cosmetic mtx are almost as bad as loot boxes imo. The game industry has sold younger gamers this lie that its ever so expensive to make games and they simply must sell $20 hats to you in order to make ends meet and support your game in the future, make no mistake this is total hogwash. Good developers (like say crate) live within their means dont overspend on developing games and are able to fund years of support by producing quality expansions every year or so, this however takes hard work and dedication the easy method is to sell you $20 hats and lie to you about how strapped for cash they are.

[panbient]

Originally posted by RodHull:

The game industry has sold younger gamers this lie that its ever so expensive to make games and they simply must sell $20 hats to you in order to make ends meet and support your game in the future, make no mistake this is total hogwash.

I disagree. I think pricey cosmetics are the most ethical ways to generate additional money on a pay2play game (with the obvious exception of music based games).

But it's ON PARENTS to teach their children critical thinking skills and recognize cash grabs for what they are. Game industry is not selling anything new to stupid kids. Do you not remember Pogs? Beanie Babies? Tamagotchis? Any trading cards?

You name the random disposable product - there's a generation of dumb kids who put way too much value in it. At least with cosmetics it's not resulting in a situation where actual gameplay content is removed for a future sale.

[gNuff!~©~gNom3™]

Originally posted by panbient:

I disagree. I think pricey cosmetics are the most ethical ways to generate additional money on a pay2play game (with the obvious exception of music based games).

depends on the bloody cosmetic. Evolve for instance was egregious,
-having to pay for just a colour swap should never be f'n allowed/accepted
likewise, when doing paid cosmetics, make sure you still get "some" reasonable and meaningful "free" cosmetics via ingame rewards, unlocking new skins for X, -while still being able to have a chunk of "significant" skin changes in the shop
but when a game tells you to pay 15$ for a dress change, this is beyond greedy and has no place as a fee2pay game. or pay 1$ for a red dot sight, or swap from green stripe to blue, then pay2play games can f*ck right off and join the dumpster of greedy fee2pay AAAearlyaccess "pay full price to beta test" games...
i love cosmetics, but even those have to be done "right" to deserve being a mtx without scorn

[panbient]

Nope. Still disagree entirely. Don't *need* to be able to grind any cosmetics. Price can be whatever anyone is willing to pay.

If someone wants to pay $100 for a monocle on a picture of a character they don't even use 'in-game' then so be it. More power to them.

The only time I'd have an issue with a colour swap is if colour blind players were forced to pay in order to see contrasting colours properly. Anything else is fair game.

Red dot on your sight is on sale for $99? Not coming out of my pocket. All it tells me when I see it in game is that I'm likely dealing with a brat who has more money than sense.

Greed is irrelevant in a free market. Don't like it don't buy it. A cosmetic item doesn't really change anything of the underlying game. Why does it matter what they charge?

[gNuff!~©~gNom3™]

Originally posted by panbient:

Nope. Still disagree entirely. Don't *need* to be able to grind any cosmetics. Price can be whatever anyone is willing to pay.

sry, but then you have a serious messed up view of what content is or should be(or the concept of a mtx even), imo,, especially in pay to play games, and i'd call you part of the problem why (aaa)publishers are getting cozier ripping people off, stripping games and features to nickle and dime sht that never should have been accepted
a colour change costs nothing, ergo you should not charge your fcn customers for it, as it's just a script difference and no artist spend any time working on it
"mtx" by damn nature should not be 15-99$"what any one is willing to pay"
and cosmetics do affect gameplay to people as being able to not look like sht is central to some and their enjoyment, thus you shouldn't paywall "every" cosmetic but not be a total d*ck and allow some unlocks in game (even more if/when it's sht that's been deliberately stripped out after being part of it just because they know "this" is the exact thing people want) -especially when you are already charging people for your product, more so for games where cosmetics have a potential bigger significance to people (mp rpg etc)
there is no defense for the "it's just cosmetics" excuse, being a greedy scummy as* move can still apply to cosmetics, more so when you're asking an upfront charge on your product, you want some sht to actually be "in" the product..
you want to nickle and dime customers, go f2p

[panbient]

I've studied game design in college. Worked in the industry. Burned out. Went back a decade later. Burned out again. Never going back regardless of my situation.

I fully understand what content is - including what kind of work goes into making a palette swap. You make substantial assumptions about development, organization, and implementation when you write it off as nothing more than a script change. It may well be that simple at your company. It certainly never was anywhere I worked. Funny how an open platform like the PC creates that kind of situation.

You assume the price should be based on a perception of effort required to create. This is false. Price is determined by market research. One of the principle things market research tries to discover is acceptable price points.

The biggest assumption is that cosmetics are somehow indicative of removed content. This is predominantly false. That's like screaming at a hardware store that you got ripped off because you bought a toolbox and expected it to contain all the tools in the picture. All that extra cosmetic content would NEVER have been made in the first place if there wasn't an option to sell it.

It's an alternative revenue stream because holy crap games have gotten expensive to make. Have you looked at a credit screen lately? Do you remember when it was only a single screen? How about when new console games were up to around $120-140? Now people flip out at $80 for something that took 10 times as many people to create and looks 100 times better. For CHEAPER. And they still complain.

Originally posted by gNuff!~©~gNom3™:

and cosmetics do affect gameplay to people as being able to not look like sht is central to some and their enjoyment,

That's just pathetic. And I really mean that in the dictionary definition kind of way. Like how sad is an individual's real life that they are incapable of enjoying modern diversions without being able to fully dress up as much as the next player?

[gNuff!~©~gNom3™]

Originally posted by panbient:

i didn't say the toolbox had to include all the tools, but "some"(when you decided to put sht in)
and personally increased dev cost in games i don't give a rats arse about, just because sqeenix wish to waste 300mill on tomb raider, doesn't mean the game needed or warranted the expenditure,
great games are still made today for far less, by smaller teams, that manage to do okay
it's the studios/publishers own "will" to keep the advancements and costs up, and as we've seen it doesn't really always help them anymore, cod/destiny underperforming despite the increase in dev money spent, might have been better served on "substance" department instead to attract users/mtx spending
(and i'm not oblivious to "some" natural increase in cost, but the vast majority is self inflicted)
nor did i say "all" content = stripped content, but sometimes it is, specially if it's series staple stuff that suddenly got removed and swapped for "generic nr 3"
and you thinking that "looks"/cosmetics is not deserving to be "important" for some people, especially in some games, i find equally pathetic as you do mine, -otherwise it wouldn't have been the f'n big business it is.
Not saying devs don't deserve to get paid for their work either, nor even that it wouldn't apply to so called "evil" aaa companies either. -hell i happily bought the cosmetics in GD, and would do so again and for other games. But also don't pretend that all mtx/cosmetics are created equal with the same work, or that some don't get stripped out once in a while.
And whether or not that then should be included/is okay to be mtx, is a difference of opinion
but personally i fall soo far of the scale of the spectrum on this subject i can't even agree with people merely thinking it's okay to accept some mtx practices to be be in the same room with.
I find it so vehemently reprehensibly to nickle and dime some aspects of already paid products, regardless of a game having had a $100mill budget or 1mill.
(and you're partially right, it's a free market; so i'm free to not buy some of those games, and personally i don't. I just get bummed out whenever i see more and more that fall in my "skip" category -luckily there are still plenty of games to play)
But it's the same mentality that in 10 years would have people be okay with having to get charged extra for getting sound on a movie...
^as you may note from that farfetched comparison there is no semblance to be had with me on this matter, as far as i'm concerned it's not a "debate" so nothing really to be gained or said that could ever change my disdain for it.
you thinking capitalism is reason/good enough to like/excuse all/any "free market" thought/behavior is just not something i share, call me an old grump, but some sht just aint right to me, and never will be, not much constructive reasoning/debate to be had there with me.

[RodHull]

Originally posted by panbient:

But it's ON PARENTS to teach their children critical thinking skills and recognize cash grabs for what they are. Game industry is not selling anything new to stupid kids. Do you not remember Pogs? Beanie Babies? Tamagotchis? Any trading cards?

You name the random disposable product - there's a generation of dumb kids who put way too much value in it. At least with cosmetics it's not resulting in a situation where actual gameplay content is removed for a future sale.

First of all they did however end up with an actual thing they owned, no matter how 'disposable' you pass them off as to support your flawed argument. Where as here with cosmetics in online games we simply end up owning access to some code for as long as the developer deems it profitable to keep the servers up. So no its not comparable at all. If you want to engage in flawed analogies it is more like asking a kid from the 90s to pay money for an outfit for a doll they owned that they only get to use when the person who sold it to them allows and the seller can at any time revoke their use of it.

Originally posted by panbient:

Nope. Still disagree entirely. Don't *need* to be able to grind any cosmetics. Price can be whatever anyone is willing to pay.

So your one of these unchecked capitalist greed is good types, gotcha.

So if I make a game that gets away with some horrible business practice, and people accept it then that makes it acceptable does it? Fact is no matter how you try to spin it they are not needed, the example crate (and others) sets shows this, that simple point debunks your argument. The fact companies like EA et'al have tricked people like you into believing that mtx do anything except further line the pockets of their investors and shareholders is just a testament to what a good job AAA games developers and publishers have done desensitising us to being basically conned.

Originally posted by panbient:

I've studied game design in college. Worked in the industry. Burned out. Went back a decade later. Burned out again. Never going back regardless of my situation.

I fully understand what content is - including what kind of work goes into making a palette swap. You make substantial assumptions about development, organization, and implementation when you write it off as nothing more than a script change. It may well be that simple at your company. It certainly never was anywhere I worked. Funny how an open platform like the PC creates that kind of situation.

Amazing how many game designers frequent forums when the argument calls for it

Originally posted by panbient:

The biggest assumption is that cosmetics are somehow indicative of removed content. This is predominantly false. That's like screaming at a hardware store that you got ripped off because you bought a toolbox and expected it to contain all the tools in the picture. All that extra cosmetic content would NEVER have been made in the first place if there wasn't an option to sell it.

It's an alternative revenue stream because holy crap games have gotten expensive to make.

They are removed content. The people set aside to create that content could be engaging in making quality dlc (like crate do) rather than wasting their talents designing funny hats to sell to 'whales' and patenting ways to 'maximise player engagement' by designing algorithms that match people with paid mtx with non mtx people. And before you pretend your above such manipulation, your not none of us are its why companies spend billions on advertising... it works

Originally posted by panbient:

Originally posted by gNuff!~©~gNom3™:

and cosmetics do affect gameplay to people as being able to not look like sht is central to some and their enjoyment,

That's just pathetic. And I really mean that in the dictionary definition kind of way. Like how sad is an individual's real life that they are incapable of enjoying modern diversions without being able to fully dress up as much as the next player?

So because somebody may enjoy an aspect of a game you dont value they are 'pathetic'

Wow ok your a delightful individual.

[MvPKosT]

microtrans for what bro?

[panbient]

Originally posted by RodHull:

Originally posted by panbient:

Nope. Still disagree entirely. Don't *need* to be able to grind any cosmetics. Price can be whatever anyone is willing to pay.

So your one of these unchecked capitalist greed is good types, gotcha.

So if I make a game that gets away with some horrible business practice, and people accept it then that makes it acceptable does it? Fact is no matter how you try to spin it they are not needed, the example crate (and others) sets shows this, that simple point debunks your argument. The fact companies like EA et'al have tricked people like you into believing that mtx do anything except further line the pockets of their investors and shareholders is just a testament to what a good job AAA games developers and publishers have done desensitising us to being basically conned.

That is literally the point I was trying to make. I'm also not reading an unformatted wall of text. I've also tried to build one of the algorithms you hate - for the people who liked the game I was on ie: not you. And that's ok. You're better than that old audience. But hey, 7 billion people on the planet. There should be room for variety, no?

None of us need to like it though. It's just the reality of the situation. The game with a horrible business practice is a great example. Except you don't actually have an example. Just "horrible business practice". Of making money? Bad news buddy, they all want to make money. Even Crate. You want to say their way is somehow better than another guys way that's on you. Pretty sure the staff at both places expects to be paid. It's a lot easier to maintain a small group than a massive team.

And what do you think will happen to them if the "un-announced" city builder flops? I certainly hope it doesn't, but Grim Dawn seems like a successful run of calculated risks and well executed plans - that's something unique to small companies. I hope it lasts, I really like city builders...

(I also hope I'm not the only one noticing the irony in some people wanting stuff for free calling the person expecting the creators to be paid greedy.)

[RodHull]

Originally posted by panbient:

None of us need to like it though. It's just the reality of the situation. The game with a horrible business practice is a great example. Except you don't actually have an example. Just "horrible business practice".

I can give countless examples if you want but you dont want you just want to sit there spouting your 'im a game developer' yoda wisdom at us as though none of us are aware of how capitalism works, or in the case of the games industry, has ceased to work as monopolies have been allowed to go unchecked as its a largely unregulated industry by comparison to other forms of media. I mean if you want we can go into how some countries and regions are already introducing laws and regulations to tempter the excesses of game developers.

But hey thats ok we can just make hay while the sun shines right who cares if the industry eats itself alive so long as people are prepared to pay for a $20 virtual hat who are we to question it. People like you are whats wrong with the games industry

[Sjarken]

"Games are too expensive to make" Is a lie! If it wasnt, it would be too expensive to make before they invented microtransactions too. Remember back then, they had to also pay for a cover for the game, a manual and the disk or cd for it. They had to write the engine from scratch, usually in machine code. Do you know the difference between writing in C++ vs. machine code? The difference in time used is huge. I know how to program in both of those, and to be good in machine code you have to be a mathematical genius, while you just need practice to get good in C++. Today you can even buy a engine to skip most of the coding.

Remember the horse armor dlc for Oblivion? That was the first microtransaction that really got the wheels rolling. First time i heard about that, i thought: "no one is stupid enough to buy that"
Boy was i wrong. After that it became more and more normal for games to have microtransactions. Now it becomes more and more normal for games to have lootboxes, content pulled out of games and sold back to us as dlc. Microtransactions everywhere. Want to buy more bullets? 5$. Oh you died, want to respawn? 5$.

"Hey we have a game without microtransactions!" developer puts in microtransactions 6 months later, when reviews are done.
What entertainment industry made most money last year? Its certainly not Hollywood. Music industry? lol yeah right. Yep, its the aaa gaming industry. The multi billion dollar industry. Insane amount of money flows through it. If a game makes 10 million dollar in profit, its seen as a failure. Seriously, if you dont believe me look it up.

And its going to get worse. If you think people are not stupid enough to buy into this scummy practice, think again. This has been proven over and over. So its going to get alot worse, and it is already really bad.
So we the players will in the end suffer from this. As well as aaa developers, until they can unionize at least, they will be worked to death without paid overtime or any labor rights most of us have.

Good thing we have indie games and developers. Even the larger indie games dont have predatory practice. The day that change, i will quit buying new games.