Why do people think microtransactions are acceptable?

[Connor]

Gamers nowadays just buy into this horrible trash and shill out over the latest popular franchise even if they've paid money for the game. It's ridiculous.

PUBG is a great example, you've already paid 30 USD for the game, now they're charging you more money to actually get in game items. It's unacceptable!

Remember not long ago when the older cods and halos even Halo 4 didn't have this trash? You bought the game and that was it, no toxic gambling system, no microtransactions. Just the game, you buy it and you can now obtain everything in the game via playing the damn game not just shilling out more money.

Kids are easily manipulated into this system through youtube and twitch streamers dramaticizing and glorifying microtransactions and gambling loot boxes and it's honestly despicable. When will people actually realize that they're falling prey to insane corporate greed? Even Valve themselves do it filling their games with horrendous gambling systems yet so many people seem to have no issue with it.

[Garou]

Until courts in more countries decide it's illegal your best bet is to not buy them and teach your kids not to buy them.

[Count_Dandyman]

Microtransactions as a whole aren't really acceptable or unacceptable there are too many games using them in too many ways to make a blanket statement on.

Sure there are very blatant cases where they are wrong by just being gambling for temporary boosts needed to progress well like the E.A sports games love and very clear cut cases of ones that are fine because they are a fixed payment for a fixed item thats not going to have a major effect on the game itself so its a personal choice with total honesty used by games like warframe. Mostly what we have now falls into the grey area between those extremes though and becaomes a situation where players have to decide for themselves what they deem acceptable or not.

[Hannibal]

Some devs abuse it, others use it as continued revenue to add more features to the game. I don't mind them as long as they are substantial, cosmetic, are not pay to win. I certainly don't like them day one. Makes you ask why wasn't it in the game to begin with. After its been out awhile it doesn't bother me.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Microtransactions have been a hot topic on the forums for years.

For free to play games they are the only way for the developers to gain revenue.

For pay to plays they can be deeply annoying. It really put me off Sims 3 that having spent a fortune on the game and expansions tons of content was still behind paywalls. Deus Ex Mankind Divided caused an internet meltdown when they were selling one shot items in game.

For some games, like Depth, the skin drops are an added incentive to play - mitigated by the fact that the visibility settings mean most diver gear can't actually be seen and from a diver point of view I far prefer sharks to have glow in the dark red skins rather than the grey ones that are very hard to see.

The problem is that certain developers, and Valve unfortunately are amongst the worst offenders, have over exploited gamers by massively overcharging on MTS. The "overcharging" to deal with Start Running's arguments are that the price for MT's as opposed to the price for the main game are grossly disproportionate.

It's also leading to a corrosive distrust between gamers and developers as gamers perceive themselves as being exploited as cash cows by developers putting increasing revenue before all things.

In the case of lootboxes some European states have warned publishers that some of their games constitute illegal gambling.

I don't mind DLC per se where there is genuinely substantial added content. Most, but not all, of the Borderlands DLC added significant extra content for the money.

I think it's important that there is public pressure against exploitative MTs to discourage them - if you fight you don't always win, but if you don't fight you always lose.

The computer games market is economically huge and as gamers we need, by our spending patterns, to reward those publishers and developers that are producing great content under fair conditions.

S.x.

[YoWutSup]

The days of paying one price tag for a completed game are pretty much long over, especially for multiplayer-centric titles.

[Ishraqiyun]

It's drip pricing. Airlines do it like this too. It's a way to break up a huge outlay into little pieces so that you can't make an overall cost assessment at one point in time.

[Tito Shivan]

I'm fine with the concept of MTs, although I don't like some of it's implementations. It's just the natural way game financing has come to adapt to the changing expectations of gamers towards the games they play. (Specially in the MP gaming scene)

You no longer buy a $60 game and call it a day. Those days are gone. Nowadays gamers expect long term involvement from the developer with the games they play. They expect new content rolling it to keep the game fresh and they expect it for longer timeframes.

Financing that on a single game puchase doesn't cut it anymore. DLC packs are starting to not cut that line either (unless you blur the frequencies of DLC release until it almost becomes MTs themselves)

MTs are the logical evolution. A financing option that works continuosly for as long as there's player involvement. Just like a coffee shop lives out of the customers that come make their daily $1 coffee or the $5 breakfast and die the day their customers go elsewhere.

You're not going to make a lasting coffee shop for demanding a $360 payment in advance for a year of coffee. Not every (in fact very little) customer wants to make that payment upfront or has the commitment to go and take his coffee every day as to consider paying that money upfront.

MTs offer flexibility on both sides of the fence. I can go and make 3 lattes one day and 10 the next week and none the next month. Likewise I can decide how much I want to spend in a game at any given time and Devs receive a steady flow of money to keep things interesting enough to keep me going back at the game (And they won't if I don't which entices them to make stuff interesting enough to keep me coming back)

Originally posted by _Insanity_:

Until courts in more countries decide it's illegal your best bet is to not buy them and teach your kids not to buy them.

Not all microtransactions are lootboxes. The actual issue in some countries is about lootboxes, not MTs.

[Connor]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

I'm fine with the concept of MTs, although I don't like some of it's implementations. It's just the natural way game financing has come to adapt to the changing expectations of gamers towards the games they play. (Specially in the MP gaming scene)

You no longer buy a $60 game and call it a day. Those days are gone. Nowadays gamers expect long term involvement from the developer with the games they play. They expect new content rolling it to keep the game fresh and they expect it for longer timeframes.

It's not okay though whenever MTS take the place of progression in the game or unlockables for a game that you've paid money for. Like I said PUBG being a great example of that, then games like wow where you pay 50+ dollars to be able to play the game then pay a monthly fee and they still shove and advertise microtransactions in your face for mounts, pets, and even gold it's corporate greed. Adding virtual skins isn't long term involvement, that takes a very small amount of effort and produces a lot of profit when they introduce them as MTS especially MTS that are gambling.

[f1ed]

I’m ok with them as long as they don’t affect the gameplay.

[ezwip]

I don't mind micro transactions on a level playing field, but when you see a cheater in every match that takes the fun out of blowing your money on it. It is the biggest issue with PC gaming. If they could stop the cheating they would dominate gaming.

[Dominic]

I normally will play the games but I avoid spending more money then just buying the game itself now.

I honestly like older games more. And people make mods for games like the old Doom that offer more then what you get in a DLC or a microtransaction for free.

[shoopy]

It gives you the option to not pay for stuff rather than setting the base cost to $90 instead.

[Vince ✟]

Originally posted by slandy:

It gives you the option to not pay for stuff rather than setting the base cost to $90 instead.

Haha I like this cup is half full outlook!

[secuda]

Originally posted by slandy:

It gives you the option to not pay for stuff rather than setting the base cost to $90 instead.

This and frankly i would hatte to pay €90-€150 for standard edition.

[Blargo]

Haven't the PUBG devs been kind of repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with their business practices though?
I don't know if I would call it a good example if it's actually driving players away.