Search This Blog

Showing posts with label microtransactions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label microtransactions. Show all posts

July 12, 2017

They Dream Of A World Free Of Playstation 4 Microtransactions

  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 4
  3. The hate towards Microtransactions is un-reasonable.
Moriarty 6 days ago#1
I really don't get how people think like this. Why wouldn't you want to extend the life of your favourite games? I only object to story DLC that is already on the disc and just inaccessible until you pay for it. Even then, it's the same price as having a few beers (that you just piss away). Not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was CHOKING ON TEARS OF JOY.
Haeravon 6 days ago#2
Expansions =/= microtransactions. I've never heard of a microtranscation that extends the life of a game. Usually they are the result of intentionally introduced misery that's removed by paying.
PSN: Haeravon
Follow my work at: www.facebook.com/haeravonfaqs, twitch.tv/haeravon and www.youtube.com/user/haeravonfaqs
While I do agree that the hate towards microtransactions is generally unreasonable, you're mixing up those and DLC. Microtransactions reduce the life of a game rather than extend it, almost exclusively.
not really
sure its sometimes done right
Most of the time it isnt and the game is designed around microtransactions which greatly reduces the quality of the game.
Currently Playing :Dead Cells and Cave Story + (Switch)
#5
(message deleted)
If I buy a game that is being sold as a premium I don't want it to nudge me to spend more money on it. It's unreasonable to design the game around that concept.

If you want to beg people for money through the duration of their playing, make a free-to-play game.
Draconas_Lyrr posted...
While I do agree that the hate towards microtransactions is generally unreasonable, you're mixing up those and DLC. Microtransactions reduce the life of a game rather than extend it, almost exclusively.

No, it really isn't
IloveElite 6 days ago#8
Haeravon posted...
Expansions =/= microtransactions. I've never heard of a microtranscation that extends the life of a game. Usually they are the result of intentionally introduced misery that's removed by paying.


This^^

Microtransactions like day 1 dlc, achievements and locked on disc dlc are a cancer on gaming.
PS4 Pro - Elite Dangerous, Legendary edition
Current ships: Cobra MkIII, Dolphin, Vulture | Doing: Passenger missions & Deliverys | Server: & MobiusPvE


To be fair only thing gamefaqs dont hate is cats.
http://i.imgur.com/mLhEeaZ.gifv
Death Road to Canada = 10/10
(edited 6 days ago)reportquote
TinTin700 6 days ago#10
MORIARTY 

New User 
User Since: Sep 2016
Karma: 9
Active Posts: 1


Pulled out the alt account for this low quality bait I see?
Keeping it real.
3D3 6 days ago#11
You're unreasonable.
Not changing this sig until I get a hug from Jessica Nigri. started 6/22/2015
normo1 6 days ago#12
Micro transactions can work. The MMO SWTOR does them well in my opinion. You basically buy a crate (like cod) and you get given a few items. You can keep the items for yourself or sell them on the auction house so ingame credits. Therefore everyone can get all the micro transaction items for free just by earning in game credits.

I don't mind cosmetic microtransactions when I can earn the items in game like CoD does. Sure someone can spend tons of money to keep the game alive but I can also get the same items for free

P2W is not good though and I won't play the game
PSN - Manorm
(edited 6 days ago)reportquote
bmouse6 6 days ago#13
Microtransactions do the exact opposite - they lessen time invested in the game, because you can spend real money to acquire content you would otherwise have to grind for.

Be they lives, powerups, skillpoints, some form of in-game money, weapons, upgrades, you name it. All you have to do is pay the right price and you can have the content available at day 1, as opposed to day 58, if you played normally.

Imagine if you could purchase all of the gear at any time in Diablo 3. There would be little to no point to leaderboards, and hardly anyone would be playing, because 99% of the game consists of loot grinding.
PSN: bmouse
The thrown rose is only significant in it's insignificance.
(edited 6 days ago)reportquote
Haeravon posted...
Expansions =/= microtransactions. I've never heard of a microtranscation that extends the life of a game. Usually they are the result of intentionally introduced misery that's removed by paying.

"The American people are basically anti-intellectual." - Philip K. Dick
BaldursGate 6 days ago#15
Microtransactions are only done right when they're cosmetic and don't affect gameplay/ give you an advantage in any way.
Haeravon 6 days ago#16
BaldursGate posted...
Microtransactions are only done right when they're cosmetic and don't affect gameplay/ give you an advantage in any way.
PSN: Haeravon
Follow my work at: www.facebook.com/haeravonfaqs, twitch.tv/haeravon and www.youtube.com/user/haeravonfaqs
Jiminip 6 days ago#17
It's not micro transactions you dislike, it's people who buy them.
Proud member of The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society.
RyanEsau 6 days ago#18
Well, if Rockstar didn't get blindsided by the $ from Mircotransactions we'd probably have our Story DLC that they had promised us back in like Late 2014...

Don't really have any reason to be for Mircotransactions. Never seen it benefit anything but the developer's pockets.
PSN: RyanEsau | https://psnprofiles.com/RyanEsau
PC: i7-6700K @ 4.5 Ghz, Asus ROG Strix GTX 1070 OC | https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Sgt.Soldier/saved/FsQK8d
BaldursGate posted...
Microtransactions are only done right when they're cosmetic and don't affect gameplay/ give you an advantage in any way.


Thankfully Hi-Rez figured this out... Since spending money just gives you cosmetics, boosters (that only affect after match gains like God exp and currency, which don't affect gameplay at all), and Let you buy in to events... Which just unlock more cosmetics... 

They do this with Smite... And it looks like they're doing it with Paladins as well... Which is why I don't mind spending money on their games...
NNID:MrOddities|PSN:OddGamer2013
Playing:Persona 5|Smite|The Binding of Isaac Afterbirth+|Warframe|Pokemon SoulSilver|Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy|Prey
BaldursGate 6 days ago#20
random_man9119 posted...
BaldursGate posted...
Microtransactions are only done right when they're cosmetic and don't affect gameplay/ give you an advantage in any way.


Thankfully Hi-Rez figured this out... Since spending money just gives you cosmetics, boosters (that only affect after match gains like God exp and currency, which don't affect gameplay at all), and Let you buy in to events... Which just unlock more cosmetics... 

They do this with Smite... And it looks like they're doing it with Paladins as well... Which is why I don't mind spending money on their games...

If they affect self progression, then they affect gameplay.
TrashPandaJedi posted...


To be fair only thing gamefaqs dont hate is cats.

Cute.
PSN: captsplatter
Switch FC: SW-3078-9578-8685
Lvl999 6 days ago#22
the only microtransactions i will tolerate are lewd swisuits
http://i.giphy.com/iGvSetfRt0dXi.gif
Too lazy to entertain you
TrashPandaJedi posted...
To be fair only thing gamefaqs dont hate is cats.

I hate cats. I'm more of a dog person.

Not those tiny toy dogs, either - I'm talking stuff like Siberian Huskies and Alaskan Malamutes.
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
BaldursGate posted...
random_man9119 posted...
BaldursGate posted...
Microtransactions are only done right when they're cosmetic and don't affect gameplay/ give you an advantage in any way.


Thankfully Hi-Rez figured this out... Since spending money just gives you cosmetics, boosters (that only affect after match gains like God exp and currency, which don't affect gameplay at all), and Let you buy in to events... Which just unlock more cosmetics... 

They do this with Smite... And it looks like they're doing it with Paladins as well... Which is why I don't mind spending money on their games...

If they affect self progression, then they affect gameplay.


Uh no... 

In Smite, all the currency does is let you buy color swapped skins (since each God has one) and let's you unlock Gods over time if you didn't buy the Ultimate God Pack which just unlocks them all... 

The God experience points are just a measure of how many times you've played the God and have no effect during matches whatsoever... 

So no... These don't actually affect gameplay in anyway...
NNID:MrOddities|PSN:OddGamer2013
Playing:Persona 5|Smite|The Binding of Isaac Afterbirth+|Warframe|Pokemon SoulSilver|Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy|Prey
(edited 6 days ago)reportquote
random_man9119 posted...
So no... These don't actually affect gameplay in anyway...

Eh, the thing that lets you unlock characters might be the only thing I'd question there, but that's one of those MOBA games I don't bother with, so I have no idea how big an issue that may or may not be.
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
KOTRwhoops 6 days ago#26
It's not unreasonable in the slightest.

This practice is destroying the soul of gaming and deserves every ounce of hate it gets.

People like you thinking it's ok only hurt the industry futher.
PLAYING - Final Fantasy Tactics WotL (PSP), Nier: Automata (PS4), The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (NS) 
PSN - Robioto, STEAM - Robioto555
Sheepinator 6 days ago#27
TrashPandaJedi posted...


To be fair only thing gamefaqs dont hate is cats.

Awesome.
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
theshoveller posted...
random_man9119 posted...
So no... These don't actually affect gameplay in anyway...

Eh, the thing that lets you unlock characters might be the only thing I'd question there, but that's one of those MOBA games I don't bother with, so I have no idea how big an issue that may or may not be.


With Smite, you can unlock the characters through cash or ingame currency... And there's no absolute best God to be so it's not like people can just buy a super OP God and then always win... To be fair, Smite's balance had always been sort of a running joke and each God usually has something that makes them broken... Syndrome's quote from The Incredibles sums up Smite balance fairly well: "When everyone's super... No one will be"
NNID:MrOddities|PSN:OddGamer2013
Playing:Persona 5|Smite|The Binding of Isaac Afterbirth+|Warframe|Pokemon SoulSilver|Crash Bandicoot N.Sane Trilogy|Prey
Gothdom 6 days ago#29
Haeravon posted...
Expansions =/= microtransactions. I've never heard of a microtranscation that extends the life of a game. Usually they are the result of intentionally introduced misery that's removed by paying.


You see, that's what Dungeons and Dragons online got right. Usually Microtransactions are lame. But in DDO, you can unlock stuff if you play long enough. If you want something, you can also pay for it. Usually, it's a quest pack, or a class, or a race which weren't in the original build. In that game, microtransactions are completely optional
because microtransactions generally DON'T extend the life of the game. the prefix "micro" implies its for little things, things like resources, skins, boosters and keys.


Most people have no problem with big pieces of dlc that DO extend the game by adding story content, and people are mixed on map packs because they can split the community, but don't generally fault a dev for selling them, because they actually do extend the life of most games, its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.
Just shut the hell up and talk about games, im so tired of the politics of gaming...
Sheepinator 6 days ago#31
singhellotaku posted...
its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.

Since a decade ago:

Games +0%
Inflation +23%
Movie tickets +35%
Disney parks +5% annually

Some people want to have their cake and eat it.
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
synklare 6 days ago#32
I don't personally hate them but they don't necessarily extend the life of a game either.

Rocket League - Implements them well, cosmetics that look awesome, found in RNG based crates and offer no gameplay advantages. They just compliment the game. You might want a decal or sexy set of wheels for your Breakout, the keys aren't too expensive and a batch of 5 can be bought for £3.99. Trading also exists. There's a solid amount of customisation options already available as well.

Injustice 2 - Crystals uses to unlock classic / premiere skins & transmog your gear. Once again, purely cosmetic. Price for crystals seems far and you obtain a batch of 100 - 200 for levelling up anyway.

Overwatch - Boxes of random stuff as per usual. All cosmetic, not a fan of the duplicate system for stuff found in the base game. Would have been nicer to complete challenges and earn skins for the heroes. That being said I'd happily pay money for boxes when events with awesome new skins are available.

Those three handle them rather well.

For Honor & Wildlands are done poorly.

Killing Floor 2 is okay but a single key is £1.99. You can only earn once piece of loot a day and that loot can be a crate which they want to spend real money on. The MTs would be completely fine if the loot system in the game worked as well as Rocket League's.

EA and Activision are just, s***.

TLDR : Some games handle MTs rather well whereas other games do them poorly.
Silos Needed. Construction Complete.
PSN & XBL : Hybridizm
Sheepinator posted...
singhellotaku posted...
its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.

Since a decade ago:

Games +0%
Inflation +23%
Movie tickets +35%
Disney parks +5% annually

Some people want to have their cake and eat it.

Whenever someone points this out they never question whether games were overpriced in the first place.
DarkWarl0rd 6 days ago#34
Moriarty posted...
I really don't get how people think like this. Why wouldn't you want to extend the life of your favourite games? I only object to story DLC that is already on the disc and just inaccessible until you pay for it. Even then, it's the same price as having a few beers (that you just piss away). Not as big a deal as people make it out to be.

dont breed, jus sayin is all.

Dlc is dlc, more content. Sometimes paid expansion. 
.
Micro transaction for a skin or boost or item or anything is cancer.
Sheepinator 6 days ago#35
NibeIungsnarf posted...
Sheepinator posted...
singhellotaku posted...
its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.

Since a decade ago:

Games +0%
Inflation +23%
Movie tickets +35%
Disney parks +5% annually

Some people want to have their cake and eat it.

Whenever someone points this out they never question whether games were overpriced in the first place.

When, like this? The times so many people here say they yearn for? You'll need to add about 60% for inflation, putting many of those games in the $100-$110 range. One of them was so broken it could even delete your save and brick the game cart.

Go have a night out eating and drinking, or paying $20 for a 2 hour movie, then try claiming games are over-priced.

hQGu1
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
Sheepinator 6 days ago#36
DarkWarl0rd posted...
Micro transaction for a skin or boost or item or anything is cancer.

So how are games like SWB2, Gears 4, Titanfall 2, MEA and others supposed to fund a year of post-launch maps and support that's being given away for free? Or should everything be free because "entitlement"?
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
juker79 6 days ago#37
Moriarty posted...
I really don't get how people think like this. Why wouldn't you want to extend the life of your favourite games? I only object to story DLC that is already on the disc and just inaccessible until you pay for it. Even then, it's the same price as having a few beers (that you just piss away). Not as big a deal as people make it out to be.


If you can object to certain paid content then surely other's can object as well.
Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a **** how crazy they are!
Sheepinator posted...
When, like this? The times so many people here say they yearn for? You'll need to add about 60% for inflation, putting many of those games in the $100-$110 range. One of them was so broken it could even delete your save and brick the game cart.

Go have a night out eating and drinking, or paying $20 for a 2 hour movie, then try claiming games are over-priced.

Please notice my tense before you flip.
juker79 6 days ago#39
synklare posted...
Rocket League - Implements them well, cosmetics that look awesome, found in RNG based crates and offer no gameplay advantages. They just compliment the game. You might want a decal or sexy set of wheels for your Breakout, the keys aren't too expensive and a batch of 5 can be bought for £3.99. Trading also exists. There's a solid amount of customisation options already available as well.


No; remove the RNG behind these items and I have no issue. I would gladly pay a $1 here and there to spice my car up; but not for a "chance" to spice my car up.
Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a **** how crazy they are!
Sheepinator posted...
So how are games like SWB2, Gears 4, Titanfall 2, MEA and others supposed to fund a year of post-launch maps and support that's being given away for free? Or should everything be free because "entitlement"?


The fact that ME:A was sold as finished product with the usual 60 dollar price tag should be what funds a "year of post-launch maps and support" considering that it was released as an overpriced early access game.


Sidenote, nobody forced EA to release the multiplayer component of the game solely through purchase of the singleplayer part. They could have released the multiplayer as a separate free to play title if they wanted to fund it through microtransactions.

Would have released it from a lot of the criticism the game gets as a whole, too.
Sheepinator posted...
NibeIungsnarf posted...
Sheepinator posted...
singhellotaku posted...
its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.

Since a decade ago:

Games +0%
Inflation +23%
Movie tickets +35%
Disney parks +5% annually

Some people want to have their cake and eat it.

Whenever someone points this out they never question whether games were overpriced in the first place.

When, like this? The times so many people here say they yearn for? You'll need to add about 60% for inflation, putting many of those games in the $100-$110 range. One of them was so broken it could even delete your save and brick the game cart.

Go have a night out eating and drinking, or paying $20 for a 2 hour movie, then try claiming games are over-priced.

To be fair, he did say only a decade ago. 10 years ago... yeah, we were paying $60 for new games,and were for probably a year or two. Think the PS3 only came out in 2005 or 2006, forget exactly when (I know it was late in the year when it came out,) and 360 games were the first to have the "$60 standard" over the "$50 standard" that was at least fairly common since the PS1 days.
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
Sheepinator 6 days ago#42
NibeIungsnarf posted...
Sheepinator posted...
So how are games like SWB2, Gears 4, Titanfall 2, MEA and others supposed to fund a year of post-launch maps and support that's being given away for free? Or should everything be free because "entitlement"?

The fact that ME:A was sold as finished product with the usual 60 dollar price tag should be what funds a "year of post-launch maps and support" considering that it was released as an overpriced early access game.

Sidenote, nobody forced EA to release the multiplayer component of the game solely through purchase of the singleplayer part. They could have released the multiplayer as a separate free to play title if they wanted to fund it through microtransactions.

Would have released it from a lot of the criticism the game gets as a whole, too.

That doesn't answer my question.

If the MP were given away free then the value proposition of the $60 game would be even less, since it would be SP only instead of SP+MP.
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
synklare 6 days ago#43
juker79 posted...
synklare posted...
Rocket League - Implements them well, cosmetics that look awesome, found in RNG based crates and offer no gameplay advantages. They just compliment the game. You might want a decal or sexy set of wheels for your Breakout, the keys aren't too expensive and a batch of 5 can be bought for £3.99. Trading also exists. There's a solid amount of customisation options already available as well.


No; remove the RNG behind these items and I have no issue. I would gladly pay a $1 here and there to spice my car up; but not for a "chance" to spice my car up.


Eh disagree. As much as I dislike RNG, it works well for the trading economy. I remember snagging a certified version of a new model of an existing car. Spent £3.99 on a batch of 5 keys, the car at the time was worth 11 keys.

From one key (& sure, RNG) I'd managed to effectively double what I'd paid and trade the car for some nifty awesome items in the process. Money paid also goes towards the pool for RLCS which I enjoy watching.

Not a big deal to me at all.
Silos Needed. Construction Complete.
PSN & XBL : Hybridizm
Sheepinator posted...
That doesn't answer my question.

I totally did. Literally the first thing I said.

Sheepinator posted...
If the MP were given away free then the value proposition of the $60 game would be even less, since it would be SP only instead of SP+MP.


As it is if you're only interested in the multiplayer you have shell out 60 dollars (speaking of release date price, obv) for a game that operates like a freemium game where it dripfeeds you content at a tedious pace that you can't control cause its all randomized. An obvious attempt to frustrate you into spending money, with timed content to control your playing habits, just like aI do freemium game.

Effectively you're paying twice for the game. You're paying the premium price (for an unfinished product) and then you're paying the freemium price of the game nagging you to spend extra money on it.

I don't think a majority of Mass Effect fans are at all interested in multiplayer, whereas a lot more people might have gotten into the multiplayer if it was a F2P game, which would funnel more microtransaction money to EA/Bioware. So I don't really think value proposition would be damaged. And if that's an issue, EA could have given some multiplayer currency to people who bought the singleplayer game.
synklare posted...
Eh disagree. As much as I dislike RNG, it works well for the trading economy. I remember snagging a certified version of a new model of an existing car. Spent £3.99 on a batch of 5 keys, the car at the time was worth 11 keys.

From one key (& sure, RNG) I'd managed to effectively double what I'd paid and trade the car for some nifty awesome items in the process. Money paid also goes towards the pool for RLCS which I enjoy watching.

Not a big deal to me at all.

...Because you got lucky and cashed out.

Might be a bigger deal to people who spend the same or more money and get nothing.

lmao
Sheepinator 6 days ago#46
NibeIungsnarf posted...
Sheepinator posted...
That doesn't answer my question.

I totally did. Literally the first thing I said.

The first thing you said? So Titanfall 2, Gears 4, SWB2 and others should have free post-launch support for a year because MEA came out rushed. LOL and that makes any sense to you?
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
Sheepinator posted...
The first thing you said? So Titanfall 2, Gears 4, SWB2 and others should have free post-launch support for a year because MEA came out rushed. LOL and that makes any sense to you?


I don't care about or play those other games so why would I comment on them. I commented on your ME:A example.
Sheepinator 6 days ago#48
NibeIungsnarf posted...
As it is if you're only interested in the multiplayer you have shell out 60 dollars (speaking of release date price, obv) for a game that operates like a freemium game where it dripfeeds you content at a tedious pace that you can't control cause its all randomized. An obvious attempt to frustrate you into spending money, with timed content to control your playing habits, just like aI do freemium game.

Effectively you're paying twice for the game. You're paying the premium price (for an unfinished product) and then you're paying the freemium price of the game nagging you to spend extra money on it.

I don't think a majority of Mass Effect fans are at all interested in multiplayer, whereas a lot more people might have gotten into the multiplayer if it was a F2P game, which would funnel more microtransaction money to EA/Bioware. So I don't really think value proposition would be damaged. And if that's an issue, EA could have given some multiplayer currency to people who bought the singleplayer game.

The value proposition for a game which only has SP or only has MP is usually worse than games which have everything. It's why SWB1, Titanfall 1 and Evolve got so much flak for being MP only and full priced, and it's why SP only games tend to see their prices crash quickly since not many want to spend $60 on something that's "only 10 or 20 hours, rent it".
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
Sheepinator posted...
It's why SWB1, Titanfall 1 and Evolve got so much flak for being MP only and full priced

That's literally not at all why Evolve got any flak or why SWB1 got the majority of its flak
Sheepinator 6 days ago#50
NibeIungsnarf posted...
Sheepinator posted...
The first thing you said? So Titanfall 2, Gears 4, SWB2 and others should have free post-launch support for a year because MEA came out rushed. LOL and that makes any sense to you?

I don't care about or play those other games so why would I comment on them. I commented on your ME:A example.

Still doesn't answer the question.

So how are games like [redacted, insert whatever examples] supposed to fund a year of post-launch maps and support that's being given away for free, if not for MT? Or should everything be free because "entitlement"?
Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 4 
  3. The hate towards Microtransactions is un-reasonable.
    1. Boards
    2. PlayStation 4
    3. The hate towards Microtransactions is un-reasonable.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#51
    NibeIungsnarf posted...
    Sheepinator posted...
    It's why SWB1, Titanfall 1 and Evolve got so much flak for being MP only and full priced

    That's literally not at all why Evolve got any flak or why SWB1 got the majority of its flak

    And yet both SWB and Titanfall added campaigns for their sequels.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    juker79 6 days ago#52
    synklare posted...
    juker79 posted...
    synklare posted...
    Rocket League - Implements them well, cosmetics that look awesome, found in RNG based crates and offer no gameplay advantages. They just compliment the game. You might want a decal or sexy set of wheels for your Breakout, the keys aren't too expensive and a batch of 5 can be bought for £3.99. Trading also exists. There's a solid amount of customisation options already available as well.


    No; remove the RNG behind these items and I have no issue. I would gladly pay a $1 here and there to spice my car up; but not for a "chance" to spice my car up.


    Eh disagree. As much as I dislike RNG, it works well for the trading economy. I remember snagging a certified version of a new model of an existing car. Spent £3.99 on a batch of 5 keys, the car at the time was worth 11 keys.

    From one key (& sure, RNG) I'd managed to effectively double what I'd paid and trade the car for some nifty awesome items in the process. Money paid also goes towards the pool for RLCS which I enjoy watching.

    Not a big deal to me at all.


    I agree that we should continue to support the game, but the system pits the gamers against each other. You have a small percentage of players taking advantage of the rest in order to come out on top of a deal. Take the car you received for 4-keys; and want to trade for 11. One item for 15-keys (~$12?) is not a good thing. Especially when the developer just has to push a button to create more.
    Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a **** how crazy they are!
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    Not sure why I should answer a question that wasn't directed at me, I didn't engage with and I have no experience with.

    You sound a little insane.

    I just commented on your ME:A example.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#54
    NibeIungsnarf posted...
    Not sure why I should answer a question that wasn't directed at me, I didn't engage with and I have no experience with.

    You sound a little insane.

    I just commented on your ME:A example.

    Says the guy who thinks multiple games from multiple publishers should have free dlc because MEA was rushed.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Sheepinator posted...
    And yet both SWB and Titanfall added campaigns for their sequels.

    I specifically left out Titanfall so I have no clue why you're trying to push that one on me. You did that with the "didn't answer my question" derpy as well. It's really weird.

    Secondly do you not see the difference between criticizing a game for being online-only and criticizing a game for doing away witht he offline singleplayer aspect present in all the previous iterations of that game to focus on an online-only experience? Titanfall is a new IP that exists solely in that sphere whereas with battlefront the fans of the franchise felt that something was being taken away from them?

    Regardless that still wasn't the major criticism of Battlefront when it came out, it was that it was a threadbare release that expected you to buy the season's pass to get a proper amount of content. That EA chose to give the game more content via a singleplayer campaign mode is their decision. I feel they could have done it just as well by expanding their online multiplayer aspect of the game.
    Sheepinator posted...
    Says the guy who thinks multiple games from multiple publishers should have free dlc because MEA was rushed.

    I only commented on your ME:A example. I made no comment on the other games you mentioned.

    How are you not getting this? 

    It's almost as if you're s***posting.
    DartDragoon 6 days ago#57
    There's good DLC and there's bad DLC

    Good DLC = Bloodborne's The Old Hunters. Add tons of content to the game, was not rushed, not on-disc (completed at least), announced later, fair price.

    Bad DLC = Marvel vs Capcom infinite. DLC of already on-disc characters that are goddamn present in the story mode but NOPE, buy the season pass you freaking idiots if you want to play as them. Announces a crapton od DLC before the game is even out.
    PSN: AstroZombie29
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#58
    NibeIungsnarf posted...
    I specifically left out Titanfall so I have no clue why you're trying to push that one on me. You did that with the "didn't answer my question" derpy as well. It's really weird.

    It was part of my question which you chose to respond to. You've now responded about 4 times and still without answering the simple question of how games such as those with free maps for a year are supposed to fund them, if not MT. By your own definition, that's "s*** posting".

    Regardless that still wasn't the major criticism of Battlefront when it came out, it was that it was a threadbare release that expected you to buy the season's pass to get a proper amount of content.

    Yeah, no SP campaign, to be rectified in the sequel.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    rafamaximo 6 days ago#59
    Never thought an opinion could be wrong. Until I read this topic. Thanks, TC
    Insert funny / cool / original / meaningful quote here.
    Sheepinator posted...
    Yeah, no SP campaign, to be rectified in the sequel.

    You understand how a criticism can be similar to what you're pretending it is without actually being the same thing, right?

    Like if you have a pet rat it might look like you have a large pet mouse, but you do in fact not have a pet mouse.
    The only time microtransactions are acceptable is if the game was free and can be finished for free.

    If you spend money to purhase a game, or have to spend money to unlock an integral portion of the game, microtransactions are completely insulting. Imagine ordering a four-topping pizza and having to pay extra to get the four toppings you paid for in the first place.
    For any whom this post happens to offend, I can get you great deal on a spine.
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#62
    You_Need_A_Life posted...
    The only time microtransactions are acceptable is if the game was free and can be finished for free.

    If you spend money to purhase a game, or have to spend money to unlock an integral portion of the game, microtransactions are completely insulting. Imagine ordering a four-topping pizza and having to pay extra to get the four toppings you paid for in the first place.

    Oh look, it's time for the terrible food analogy.

    Can you show me an example of a game saying on the box it comes with "four toppings" then not having that? I can, with Pac-Man on Atari in 1982 having doctored screenshots, but I assume you mean something more recent.

    Btw, you must be in favor of games rising 25% in price, yes?
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Microtransactions have actually removed content from the base game. Almost all of the stuff that is offered in microtransactions were originally considered unlockables in games such as costume packs, new weapons, and other misc. changes. Unlockables gave you an objective to work towards while you played the game, but with the birth of microtransactions there's almost no incentive to actively seek out collectibles and absurd optional mission objectives because you're either going to get the same thing someone shelled out money for, or even worse not get anything but the satisfaction of completing the objective. 

    Perfect scenario where you can compare and contrast is look at an older game like Super Smash Bros Brawl, and then look at something more recent such as Destiny. On one hand you could play classic mode 30 times and unlock a new fighter, on the other hand you have no choice but to purchase some new emotes if you wanted those gestures because regardless to how much time you sink into the game you will never have the opportunity to earn them.

    Another caveat for microtransactions is the lotto system many of them adapt; where you can't actually buy the item you want and have to play a game of chance at the opportunity to purchase, but that is a subtopic within the general idea of microtransactions that I will not get into right now. (Have nothing nice to say, so I will keep my mouth shut).

    If microtransactions were utilized in a way that you can earn all the same stuff in a reasonable amount of time that you could buy in a few quick clicks in the menu then we could just view them the same way we view the golden helper block in the New Super Mario games and just know they took the easy way out instead of the only way out. 

    In it's current state it's quite literally digital poison.

    Just my two cents
    Gaming has united people from the start; "Online-Only" loses focus on that goal.
    Playlist: Persona 5, Crash, Zelda:BOTW, Bioshock: Col
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#64
    Assembler114 posted...
    Microtransactions have actually removed content from the base game. Almost all of the stuff that is offered in microtransactions were originally considered unlockables in games such as costume packs, new weapons, and other misc. changes. Unlockables gave you an objective to work towards while you played the game, but with the birth of microtransactions there's almost no incentive to actively seek out collectibles and absurd optional mission objectives because you're either going to get the same thing someone shelled out money for, or even worse not get anything but the satisfaction of completing the objective. 

    Perfect scenario where you can compare and contrast is look at an older game like Super Smash Bros Brawl, and then look at something more recent such as Destiny. On one hand you could play classic mode 30 times and unlock a new fighter, on the other hand you have no choice but to purchase some new emotes if you wanted those gestures because regardless to how much time you sink into the game you will never have the opportunity to earn them.

    Another caveat for microtransactions is the lotto system many of them adapt; where you can't actually buy the item you want and have to play a game of chance at the opportunity to purchase, but that is a subtopic within the general idea of microtransactions that I will not get into right now. (Have nothing nice to say, so I will keep my mouth shut).

    If microtransactions were utilized in a way that you can earn all the same stuff in a reasonable amount of time that you could buy in a few quick clicks in the menu then we could just view them the same way we view the golden helper block in the New Super Mario games and just know they took the easy way out instead of the only way out. 

    In it's current state it's quite literally digital poison.

    Just my two cents

    ^ Someone else in favor of 25% price hikes for everyone, to keep pace with inflation which games have not done since 2006.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    TheCaliNerd 6 days ago#65
    The answer is quite simple. 

    There was a time when extra missions, new weapons and the like were obtainable by completing predetermined in-game objectives, completing the game, or were freely given to gamers. For example, the original Splinter Cell on PlayStation 2 featured a bonus mission (Nuclear Power Plant) that didn't cost anything. The Xbox version featured three bonus missions, also available at no cost. 

    In the past, if developers decided to offer additional content that was more robust, it was in the form of an expansion pack, but not like the "expansion packs" of today. In the past, an expansion pack would set you back about $15-20, but give you so much extra content that it bordered on being like a sequel. For instance, Dungeon Siege had an expansion called Legend of Arrana that was eight hours long, and only $15. Titan Quest had an expansion called Immortal Throne that launched for $15 and added 15 hours of gameplay. These days, you get "expansions" such as the Eclipse DLC pack for Black Ops III, a 2 hour "experience" that costs $15. 

    Adding insult to injury is the fact that so many publishers have offered "DLC" that was later revealed to be content that was already on the disc, effectively double or triple charging gamers to access content they was technically paid for with the initial purpose. The state of the industry is in bad shape when developers are so lazy, and publishers so greedy, that rather than create new content to sell, they'd rather charge you to access content they purposefully hid-behind a few lines of code.
    Rolling on d20's, and my lightsaber is lit. OG like a PlayStation that's 32-bit.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#66
    TheCaliNerd posted...
    Adding insult to injury is the fact that so many publishers have offered "DLC" that was later revealed to be content that was already on the disc, effectively double or triple charging gamers to access content they was technically paid for with the initial purpose. The state of the industry is in bad shape when developers are so lazy, and publishers so greedy, that rather than create new content to sell, they'd rather charge you to access content they purposefully hid-behind a few lines of code.

    Wow at the greed and entitlement from you. When you buy a game, you get what they say is in the game, not the stuff they worked on separately *which wasn't free to do*, which they didn't tell you was included in the price.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Big_Bawss 6 days ago#67
    Sheepinator posted...
    You_Need_A_Life posted...
    The only time microtransactions are acceptable is if the game was free and can be finished for free.

    If you spend money to purhase a game, or have to spend money to unlock an integral portion of the game, microtransactions are completely insulting. Imagine ordering a four-topping pizza and having to pay extra to get the four toppings you paid for in the first place.

    Oh look, it's time for the terrible food analogy.

    Can you show me an example of a game saying on the box it comes with "four toppings" then not having that? I can, with Pac-Man on Atari in 1982 having doctored screenshots, but I assume you mean something more recent.

    Btw, you must be in favor of games rising 25% in price, yes?

    Yeah exactly, it's more like buying a car and then having to pay extra for the wheels.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#68
    Big_Bawss posted...
    Sheepinator posted...
    You_Need_A_Life posted...
    The only time microtransactions are acceptable is if the game was free and can be finished for free.

    If you spend money to purhase a game, or have to spend money to unlock an integral portion of the game, microtransactions are completely insulting. Imagine ordering a four-topping pizza and having to pay extra to get the four toppings you paid for in the first place.

    Oh look, it's time for the terrible food analogy.

    Can you show me an example of a game saying on the box it comes with "four toppings" then not having that? I can, with Pac-Man on Atari in 1982 having doctored screenshots, but I assume you mean something more recent.

    Btw, you must be in favor of games rising 25% in price, yes?

    Yeah exactly, it's more like buying a car and then having to pay extra for the wheels.

    Or more likely, the upgraded sound system, sunroof, and other extras which have been sold separately for as long as I can remember.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Lamace 6 days ago#69
    Expansions = additional stories and/or quests that extend the life of the game. Some are worth the money, and offer a lot of additional content, but there are a few that offer very little and cost a lot. But on the whole, it's a good thing.

    Microtransactions = "Oh, having trouble beating this, why not spend a few bucks to make it easy?" or "Don't like the way your character looks, why not spend a few bucks to make him/her look awesome?" or "Are those timers taking too long, why not spend a few bucks to make them go faster?" While on the surface that might not seem bad, but in practice greed almost always takes over, and those little lines pop up far too frequently. Or worse, they make the things you pay money for random loot boxes. For free to play games it's not that big of a deal, but in full priced games, it's rather insulting.
    RPG terms I use;
    Traditional RPG, Advanced RPG, Action RPG, Strategy RPG, and Hybrid RPG
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    Lord_Ka1n 6 days ago#70
    The acceptance of microtransactions in full, paid games is unreasonable.
    November 8th, 2016: The day America stopped being great.
    #71
    (message deleted)
    TheCaliNerd 6 days ago#72
    Sheepinator posted...
    Wow at the greed and entitlement from you. When you buy a game, you get what they say is in the game, not the stuff they worked on separately *which wasn't free to do*, which they didn't tell you was included in the price.



    1) While I did cite an example of free additional content in older games, I also gave two examples of acceptable paid content in the form of Legend of Aranna, and Immortal Throne. So no, this has nothing to do with "entitlement," and is instead about the cost/value ratio in which developers used to offer robust additional content for $15, whereas modern games offer very little content for the same price (e.g. 8 hour expansion for $15 in 2003 vs. 2 hour expansion for $15 in 2012). 

    2) Considering that prior to the PS3/X360 era, games were sold as complete experiences where everything on the disc was available to the player (unless it was unused code e.g. "Hot Coffee"), I have no reason to be in support of developers shifting to a paradigm in which gamers are suddenly charged for content that is already on the disc. It is regressive, and exploitative.
    Rolling on d20's, and my lightsaber is lit. OG like a PlayStation that's 32-bit.
    Moriarty posted...
    I really don't get how people think like this. Why wouldn't you want to extend the life of your favourite games? I only object to story DLC that is already on the disc and just inaccessible until you pay for it. Even then, it's the same price as having a few beers (that you just piss away). Not as big a deal as people make it out to be.


    I don't know the difference between paid dlc and microtransactions, but here my thought about it. DLC which requires paying can be good and bad at the same time.

    If a company uses DLC to extend the game life or improve the game that is excellent. If a company uses to cut content from the game and make that cut content into paid DLC that is bad.

    Take Street Fighter 4 an example it has got way more characters in the game, while Street Fighter 5 go way less characters and expect us to pay DLC to get more character.

    Base Sequels games should have more content and character than previous Base and DLC games.

    Super Smash Bros is doing DLC right, every game got more content than previous without DLC, then the new game uses DLC to expand more the content.

    Basically here is a change in content:
    Super Smash Bros 3ds DLC > Super Smash Bros 3ds without DLC > Super Smash Bros Brawl.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#74
    TheCaliNerd posted...
    1) While I did cite an example of free additional content in older games, I also gave two examples of acceptable paid content in the form of Legend of Aranna, and Immortal Throne. So no, this has nothing to do with "entitlement," and is instead about the cost/value ratio in which developers used to offer robust additional content for $15, whereas modern games offer very little content for the same price (e.g. 8 hour expansion for $15 in 2003 vs. 2 hour expansion for $15 in 2012). 

    2) Considering that prior to the PS3/X360 era, games were sold as complete experiences where everything on the disc was available to the player (unless it was unused code e.g. "Hot Coffee"), I have no reason to be in support of developers shifting to a paradigm in which gamers are suddenly charged for content that is already on the disc. It is regressive, and exploitative.

    1) There is dlc you may consider good or bad, or over-priced or not, and maybe someone else will think one dlc is good value and you don't, and vice versa with a different dlc. Btw, horse armor.

    2) "complete", LOL, there it is. The old standby. Usually when gamers complain about "complete" it's just a way to try and justify their belief that stuff should be free. Those "complete" games you talk about used to cost over $100 inflation adjusted and they were usually shorter, smaller and looked worse than games today. Those "complete" games also retained their game breaking bugs forever. Never mind the fact they weren't complete anyway because you don't know what went on the cutting room floor and ended up in the sequel a year later.

    I swear 100% of the time, and I'm honestly not making this up, it's 100%, people who complain about day one dlc never ever consider the value of the game they're getting for $60. It never happens here. The game could have 1,000 hours of unique gameplay, hundreds of weapons and skins, but if the dev includes a $1 skin at launch those people would be crying here about getting ripped off.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    TheCaliNerd posted...
    There was a time when extra missions, new weapons and the like were obtainable by completing predetermined in-game objectives

    Some games still do that! There was also a time where a lot of games had no extra or post game content at all. Or if there was, the only way to get it was buying another version of the game. Konami and Capcom did a lot of that.

    I understand a myriad of arguments where DLC and microtransactions are not the best things to have around, but I don't particularly find weight behind the idea that most games would have had this content for free if they couldn't monetize it.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#76
    supermichael11 posted...
    Super Smash Bros is doing DLC right, every game got more content than previous without DLC, then the new game uses DLC to expand more the content.

    Whaaaaat? The game director wrote, "These days, the 'DLC scam' has become quite the epidemic, charging customers extra money to complete what was essentially an unfinished product". Then his game got hundreds of dollars worth of (imo) over-priced dlc, which wasn't even cross-buy, and there was no season pass or GOTY style edition for gamers to save money either. That's what you call doing it right?
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Sheepinator posted...
    The game could have 1,000 hours of unique gameplay, hundreds of weapons and skins, but if the dev includes a $1 skin at launch those people would be crying here about getting ripped off.

    This is also true.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#78
    supermichael11 posted...
    I don't know the difference between paid dlc and microtransactions

    It's a grey area. Once upon a time the term micro implied a small payment like 99 cents, and now we have GTAV Shark Cards at anything from a few bucks up to $100. Ubi has decided that if it's sold via the first party store only then it's dlc, and if it can be purchased in game then it's MT. That's still not clear though, because they can (and do) sell customization gear for a buck or two in the Store, which would be considered MT in other games. Generally speaking imo, MT is any amount of virtual currency, boosters and vanity items like skins and avatars, while DLC is actual content which also changes the game, so maps, modes, weapons, that sort of thing.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Magoichi 6 days ago#79
    Sheepinator posted...
    Assembler114 posted...
    Microtransactions have actually removed content from the base game. Almost all of the stuff that is offered in microtransactions were originally considered unlockables in games such as costume packs, new weapons, and other misc. changes. Unlockables gave you an objective to work towards while you played the game, but with the birth of microtransactions there's almost no incentive to actively seek out collectibles and absurd optional mission objectives because you're either going to get the same thing someone shelled out money for, or even worse not get anything but the satisfaction of completing the objective. 

    Perfect scenario where you can compare and contrast is look at an older game like Super Smash Bros Brawl, and then look at something more recent such as Destiny. On one hand you could play classic mode 30 times and unlock a new fighter, on the other hand you have no choice but to purchase some new emotes if you wanted those gestures because regardless to how much time you sink into the game you will never have the opportunity to earn them.

    Another caveat for microtransactions is the lotto system many of them adapt; where you can't actually buy the item you want and have to play a game of chance at the opportunity to purchase, but that is a subtopic within the general idea of microtransactions that I will not get into right now. (Have nothing nice to say, so I will keep my mouth shut).

    If microtransactions were utilized in a way that you can earn all the same stuff in a reasonable amount of time that you could buy in a few quick clicks in the menu then we could just view them the same way we view the golden helper block in the New Super Mario games and just know they took the easy way out instead of the only way out. 

    In it's current state it's quite literally digital poison.

    Just my two cents

    ^ Someone else in favor of 25% price hikes for everyone, to keep pace with inflation which games have not done since 2006.


    I do think it's possible that if DLC/microtransactions never caught on we'd probably be up to $80-100 a game, plus longer waits for releases, so in effect these optional ultimate editions would be required vs. optional.
    Sheepinator posted...
    supermichael11 posted...
    Super Smash Bros is doing DLC right, every game got more content than previous without DLC, then the new game uses DLC to expand more the content.

    Whaaaaat? The game director wrote, "These days, the 'DLC scam' has become quite the epidemic, charging customers extra money to complete what was essentially an unfinished product". Then his game got hundreds of dollars worth of (imo) over-priced dlc, which wasn't even cross-buy, and there was no season pass or GOTY style edition for gamers to save money either. That's what you call doing it right?


    Your right about Super Smash Bros dlc being overprice having to pay for both the 3DS and Wii U version, that is wrong. Basically you either pay the 3DS and Wii U version separate or buy the combined version which cost cheaper but still bad.

    What I mean was Super Smash bros 3DS got more content than previous games, that is something they done right. Super Smash Bro 3DS doesn't need to buy DLC to have more content than previous game because it already has more.

    Here is the character for the games below:

    Super Smash Bros 12 characters
    Super Smash bros Melee 26 Characters
    Super Smash Bros Brawl 39 characters
    Super Smash bros 3DS and Wii 51 characters (58 with DLC)

    See DLC isn't required for new game to surpass old game.

    Now on to Street Fighter:

    Street Fighter IV has 25 character 
    Super Street Fighter has 35 characters (This is like DLC if I am not wrong)
    Ultra Street Fighter IV has 44 characters
    Street Fighter V has 16 characters without DLC (22 with DLC and 28 with later DLC)

    See what I mean Super Smash Bro doesn't rely on DLC to have more content than previous games, while Street Fighter requires DLC to surpass the old game.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    mashu 6 days ago#81
    theshoveller posted...
    TrashPandaJedi posted...
    To be fair only thing gamefaqs dont hate is cats.

    I hate cats. I'm more of a dog person.


    Me too. XD

    To topic, microtransactions almost without exception lower the quality of a game. Even cosmetic microtransactions. You spend money to get shortcuts in the game, rather than the game actually having it as content without shortcuts. Microtransactions make you feel that you are wasting time while others are simply paying to get things immediately - and sometimes you actually are wasting time, because microtransactions often cause content to require much more grinding (so as to encourage purchase).
    I will make this short, if the sequel game has more content than previous game without needing DLC then that is good. If a new game requires DLC to surpass old game without DLC than that is badly done DLC.

    Here a simple chain how DLC is done good:
    New game with DLC > New game without DLC > Old game with DLC > Old game without DLC

    Here is how bad DLC is done:
    Old game with DLC > Old game without DLC > New game with DLC > New game without DLC.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    DeathSoul2000 posted...
    Draconas_Lyrr posted...
    While I do agree that the hate towards microtransactions is generally unreasonable, you're mixing up those and DLC. Microtransactions reduce the life of a game rather than extend it, almost exclusively.

    No, it really isn't

    It really is, though. I've played plenty of games with microtransactions and have not once paid for one or felt like I was missing out or punished for not having paid for them.
    WTGHookshot 6 days ago#84
    RyanEsau posted...
    Well, if Rockstar didn't get blindsided by the $ from Mircotransactions we'd probably have our Story DLC that they had promised us back in like Late 2014...

    Don't really have any reason to be for Mircotransactions. Never seen it benefit anything but the developer's pockets.

    What about players who have more money than time? For instance, in Horizon: Zero Dawn, to get the better weapons (which have unique ammo types), you have to resource hunt, which can take quite a bit of time. If you were a player who wanted to use those weapons but didn't have the time to spend doing all that hunting, microtransactions that allow you to buy the weapons that might appeal to you.

    Now, obviously, you are the type of gamer who has the time to invest, it would seem, but that's not the case for everyone. Some people have jobs, families, and other priorities that take up most of their time, making their time more valuable than their money. For example, so many people claim Breath of the Wild to be a masterpiece but my friend is not a fan... Mainly because it is so focused on personal discovery that he wastes so much time trying to find important stuff, whereas a game like Assassin's Creed with its viewpoints unlocking points of interest and the known location of collectibles works better for him so that he isn't wasting what little free time he has available to him.
    juker79 6 days ago#85
    WTGHookshot posted...
    RyanEsau posted...
    Well, if Rockstar didn't get blindsided by the $ from Mircotransactions we'd probably have our Story DLC that they had promised us back in like Late 2014...

    Don't really have any reason to be for Mircotransactions. Never seen it benefit anything but the developer's pockets.

    What about players who have more money than time? For instance, in Horizon: Zero Dawn, to get the better weapons (which have unique ammo types), you have to resource hunt, which can take quite a bit of time. If you were a player who wanted to use those weapons but didn't have the time to spend doing all that hunting, microtransactions that allow you to buy the weapons that might appeal to you.

    Now, obviously, you are the type of gamer who has the time to invest, it would seem, but that's not the case for everyone. Some people have jobs, families, and other priorities that take up most of their time, making their time more valuable than their money. For example, so many people claim Breath of the Wild to be a masterpiece but my friend is not a fan... Mainly because it is so focused on personal discovery that he wastes so much time trying to find important stuff, whereas a game like Assassin's Creed with its viewpoints unlocking points of interest and the known location of collectibles works better for him so that he isn't wasting what little free time he has available to him.


    No, not in single-player campaigns. There is no fear of ruining balance, and these items are already in the game (not add-on's); a free cheat-code should be implemented if we wanted the players to bypass grinding.
    Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a **** how crazy they are!
    juker79 6 days ago#86
    To add to my above post; I can understand a monetary penalty for grind skipping in online gaming. It helps keep some semblance of balance. As example, one of my favorite things to do in GTAO was run around in Free Roam. After x-years; if the mood strikes, I like that I can jump right back in for just $5-$10.
    Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a **** how crazy they are!
    supermichael11 posted...
    Super Smash Bros 12 characters
    Super Smash bros Melee 26 Characters
    Super Smash Bros Brawl 39 characters
    Super Smash bros 3DS and Wii 51 characters (58 with DLC)

    See DLC isn't required for new game to surpass old game.

    Brawl and Smash 4 were crap and in no way surpassed Melee, though
    Xyex 6 days ago#88
    WTGHookshot posted...
    RyanEsau posted...
    Well, if Rockstar didn't get blindsided by the $ from Mircotransactions we'd probably have our Story DLC that they had promised us back in like Late 2014...

    Don't really have any reason to be for Mircotransactions. Never seen it benefit anything but the developer's pockets.

    What about players who have more money than time? For instance, in Horizon: Zero Dawn, to get the better weapons (which have unique ammo types), you have to resource hunt, which can take quite a bit of time. If you were a player who wanted to use those weapons but didn't have the time to spend doing all that hunting, microtransactions that allow you to buy the weapons that might appeal to you.

    Now, obviously, you are the type of gamer who has the time to invest, it would seem, but that's not the case for everyone. Some people have jobs, families, and other priorities that take up most of their time, making their time more valuable than their money. For example, so many people claim Breath of the Wild to be a masterpiece but my friend is not a fan... Mainly because it is so focused on personal discovery that he wastes so much time trying to find important stuff, whereas a game like Assassin's Creed with its viewpoints unlocking points of interest and the known location of collectibles works better for him so that he isn't wasting what little free time he has available to him.

    Someone who lacks the free time to properly enjoy a game should not be playing that game. Mcirotransactions 'to save time' rob you twice. First of your money, then of your full enjoyment of the game.
    Don't be stupid, stupid.
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#89
    Xyex posted...
    Someone who lacks the free time to properly enjoy a game should not be playing that game. Mcirotransactions 'to save time' rob you twice. First of your money, then of your full enjoyment of the game.

    Hahaha, oh GameFaqs... "If you don't have as much time to play a game as I do, you shouldn't be playing it."
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    NibeIungsnarf posted...
    supermichael11 posted...
    Super Smash Bros 12 characters
    Super Smash bros Melee 26 Characters
    Super Smash Bros Brawl 39 characters
    Super Smash bros 3DS and Wii 51 characters (58 with DLC)

    See DLC isn't required for new game to surpass old game.

    Brawl and Smash 4 were crap and in no way surpassed Melee, though


    I was talking about characters not gameplay, although lets avoid discussing Super Smash Bro since this is the PS4 board, I only mentioned the DLC as an example.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    Sheepinator posted...
    NibeIungsnarf posted...
    Sheepinator posted...
    singhellotaku posted...
    its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.

    Since a decade ago:

    Games +0%
    Inflation +23%
    Movie tickets +35%
    Disney parks +5% annually

    Some people want to have their cake and eat it.

    Whenever someone points this out they never question whether games were overpriced in the first place.

    When, like this? The times so many people here say they yearn for? You'll need to add about 60% for inflation, putting many of those games in the $100-$110 range. One of them was so broken it could even delete your save and brick the game cart.

    Go have a night out eating and drinking, or paying $20 for a 2 hour movie, then try claiming games are over-priced.

    hQGu1


    That's awesome. But wasn't the standard price at 49.99 for PS1 games? I could've sworn that's what all new games were marketed at. Same with PS2 maybe? lol...my parents bought most of my games back then so I don't remember for some reason.

    Yeah, either way. Gaming is a pretty cost efficient hobby. I've never been one to complain about micro transactions or dlc. Yeah, it can be done wrong, but it can also be done right and those are usually the ones I end up supporting. Thing is: If people didn't support micro transactions, then they wouldn't be a thing in the first place. So really you have to wonder where the blame lies in these situations.
    Laugh, and the world laughs with you; 
    Weep, and you weep alone.
    WTGHookshot 6 days ago#92
    juker79 posted...
    WTGHookshot posted...
    RyanEsau posted...
    Well, if Rockstar didn't get blindsided by the $ from Mircotransactions we'd probably have our Story DLC that they had promised us back in like Late 2014...

    Don't really have any reason to be for Mircotransactions. Never seen it benefit anything but the developer's pockets.

    What about players who have more money than time? For instance, in Horizon: Zero Dawn, to get the better weapons (which have unique ammo types), you have to resource hunt, which can take quite a bit of time. If you were a player who wanted to use those weapons but didn't have the time to spend doing all that hunting, microtransactions that allow you to buy the weapons that might appeal to you.

    Now, obviously, you are the type of gamer who has the time to invest, it would seem, but that's not the case for everyone. Some people have jobs, families, and other priorities that take up most of their time, making their time more valuable than their money. For example, so many people claim Breath of the Wild to be a masterpiece but my friend is not a fan... Mainly because it is so focused on personal discovery that he wastes so much time trying to find important stuff, whereas a game like Assassin's Creed with its viewpoints unlocking points of interest and the known location of collectibles works better for him so that he isn't wasting what little free time he has available to him.


    No, not in single-player campaigns. There is no fear of ruining balance, and these items are already in the game (not add-on's); a free cheat-code should be implemented if we wanted the players to bypass grinding.

    If games were cheaper to make, I could understand having a free cheat-code to bypass grinding... But the point of microtransactions is to add monetary supplement to a game. Sometimes, $60 for a game literally isn't enough to cover the development costs, publishing costs, and marketing costs based upon the consumer pool for that game and still meet the necessary profit margin for the company to grow. Now, sometimes, this is abused... But sometimes, it is definitely necessary. Especially these days as advertising costs, publishing costs, and development costs rise consistently but base prices for games do not rise at the same speed.

    Honestly, if someone came up with a way to speed up game development while still maintaining quality at a cheaper price, they could make a ton of money on licensing out that platform/software/patent. But until then, it's only going to get worse for companies and consumers alike.
    Magoichi 6 days ago#93
    Mr_M0j0_Rising posted...
    Sheepinator posted...
    NibeIungsnarf posted...
    Sheepinator posted...
    singhellotaku posted...
    its the little things that piss people off, the kinds of things you see in mobile games, again, exp boosters, keys for loot boxes, cosmetic options that might have been free a decade ago, and so on.

    Since a decade ago:

    Games +0%
    Inflation +23%
    Movie tickets +35%
    Disney parks +5% annually

    Some people want to have their cake and eat it.

    Whenever someone points this out they never question whether games were overpriced in the first place.

    When, like this? The times so many people here say they yearn for? You'll need to add about 60% for inflation, putting many of those games in the $100-$110 range. One of them was so broken it could even delete your save and brick the game cart.

    Go have a night out eating and drinking, or paying $20 for a 2 hour movie, then try claiming games are over-priced.

    hQGu1


    That's awesome. But wasn't the standard price at 49.99 for PS1 games? I could've sworn that's what all new games were marketed at. Same with PS2 maybe? lol...my parents bought most of my games back then so I don't remember for some reason.

    Yeah, either way. Gaming is a pretty cost efficient hobby. I've never been one to complain about micro transactions or dlc. Yeah, it can be done wrong, but it can also be done right and those are usually the ones I end up supporting. Thing is: If people didn't support micro transactions, then they wouldn't be a thing in the first place. So really you have to wonder where the blame lies in these situations.


    Yes, standardized pricing came around two decades back, and when people didn't even like the $10 increase in the HD generation, DLC and microtransactions quickly became the new way of targeting profits.
    If it's not f2p then it has no business using them
    just your typical butthurt basement dweller
    Sheepinator 6 days ago#95
    SnakePlisken94 posted...
    If it's not f2p then it has no business using them

    Alright, so you're in favor of 25% price hikes and paid dlc splitting MP populations.
    Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee's for closers only.
    Sheepinator posted...
    SnakePlisken94 posted...
    If it's not f2p then it has no business using them

    Alright, so you're in favor of 25% price hikes and paid dlc splitting MP populations.


    As long as company make the new base game without DLC better than old game then I have no issue with paid DLC.

    DLC should be used to implement features which can't be added due to time constraint, basically improve the game not as a mean to cut features on purpose to later sell as DLC.

    Paid DLC done right is good, while if it done wrong then it is bad.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    calcilisx 6 days ago#97
    random_man9119 posted...
    BaldursGate posted...
    random_man9119 posted...
    BaldursGate posted...
    Microtransactions are only done right when they're cosmetic and don't affect gameplay/ give you an advantage in any way.


    Thankfully Hi-Rez figured this out... Since spending money just gives you cosmetics, boosters (that only affect after match gains like God exp and currency, which don't affect gameplay at all), and Let you buy in to events... Which just unlock more cosmetics... 

    They do this with Smite... And it looks like they're doing it with Paladins as well... Which is why I don't mind spending money on their games...

    If they affect self progression, then they affect gameplay.


    Uh no... 

    In Smite, all the currency does is let you buy color swapped skins (since each God has one) and let's you unlock Gods over time if you didn't buy the Ultimate God Pack which just unlocks them all... 

    The God experience points are just a measure of how many times you've played the God and have no effect during matches whatsoever... 

    So no... These don't actually affect gameplay in anyway...


    You forgot one thing, smite is free to play so all the microtransaction issue is invalid.

    For smite at least
    (edited 6 days ago)reportquote
    Haeravon posted...
    Expansions =/= microtransactions. I've never heard of a microtranscation that extends the life of a game. Usually they are the result of intentionally introduced misery that's removed by paying.


    Ah yes I remember a time when you could buy an expansion for 30fl and have an entire new campaign. The good old days.
    Krazy_Kirby 5 days ago#99
    sometimes dlc is in (at least partially) before the game is even released... also

    expansions =/= microtransactions
    Kill From The Shadows
    Xyex 5 days ago#100
    WTGHookshot posted...
    juker79 posted...
    WTGHookshot posted...
    RyanEsau posted...
    Well, if Rockstar didn't get blindsided by the $ from Mircotransactions we'd probably have our Story DLC that they had promised us back in like Late 2014...

    Don't really have any reason to be for Mircotransactions. Never seen it benefit anything but the developer's pockets.

    What about players who have more money than time? For instance, in Horizon: Zero Dawn, to get the better weapons (which have unique ammo types), you have to resource hunt, which can take quite a bit of time. If you were a player who wanted to use those weapons but didn't have the time to spend doing all that hunting, microtransactions that allow you to buy the weapons that might appeal to you.

    Now, obviously, you are the type of gamer who has the time to invest, it would seem, but that's not the case for everyone. Some people have jobs, families, and other priorities that take up most of their time, making their time more valuable than their money. For example, so many people claim Breath of the Wild to be a masterpiece but my friend is not a fan... Mainly because it is so focused on personal discovery that he wastes so much time trying to find important stuff, whereas a game like Assassin's Creed with its viewpoints unlocking points of interest and the known location of collectibles works better for him so that he isn't wasting what little free time he has available to him.


    No, not in single-player campaigns. There is no fear of ruining balance, and these items are already in the game (not add-on's); a free cheat-code should be implemented if we wanted the players to bypass grinding.

    If games were cheaper to make, I could understand having a free cheat-code to bypass grinding... But the point of microtransactions is to add monetary supplement to a game. Sometimes, $60 for a game literally isn't enough to cover the development costs, publishing costs, and marketing costs based upon the consumer pool for that game and still meet the necessary profit margin for the company to grow. Now, sometimes, this is abused... But sometimes, it is definitely necessary. Especially these days as advertising costs, publishing costs, and development costs rise consistently but base prices for games do not rise at the same speed.

    Honestly, if someone came up with a way to speed up game development while still maintaining quality at a cheaper price, they could make a ton of money on licensing out that platform/software/patent. But until then, it's only going to get worse for companies and consumers alike.

    The problem is the constant push to be bigger and better than the last guy. Dev teams and times have exploded, along with costs, and are at or near untenable levels. Honestly, if the industry had grown properly, instead of insisting on pushing for more than it could handle all the time, we'd only just now be winding down the PS2 generation and revving up for the PS3.
    Don't be stupid, stupid.
    1. Boards
    2. PlayStation 4 
    3. The hate towards Microtransactions is un-reasonable.
      1. Boards
      2. PlayStation 4
      3. The hate towards Microtransactions is un-reasonable.
      the companies don't charge $60. stores purchase them and sell for a profit

      ^
      "just winding down ps2"

      wtf? that would be horrible. why would you want to play a game that runs much worse when the technology is easily available to make it better
      Kill From The Shadows
      (edited 5 days ago)reportquote
      zxxcman 5 days ago#102
      Why are you sullying the good name of Professor James Moriarty?
      'None of those are FACT apart from house going to catch fire which could technically happen.' - edgyfury 22/10/2016
      'Please remove your signature' - edgyfury
      Xyex 5 days ago#103
      Krazy_Kirby posted...
      the companies don't charge $60. stores purchase them and sell for a profit

      ^
      "just winding down ps2"

      wtf? that would be horrible. why would you want to play a game that runs much worse when the technology is easily available to make it better

      If it's so easy why do modern games take hundreds of people, millions of dollars, and years to make?

      Also, maybe should aka that question of the millions of people who bought NES classics, or have already sold out the SNES classic preorders.
      Don't be stupid, stupid.
      Microtransactions - if you don't like them, don't buy them.

      If people agree with you, they'll prove not to be worth the effort and developers will stop.

      However if people disagree and don't mind buying them, you are clearly in a minority and need to get over how other people spend their money.
      The 43rd President of the United States
      Died April 30th 2009
      Most games make games more grindy to encourage you to purchase their microtransactions to get ahead or save you time. They purposely develop the game mechanics to make it unbearable boring to play without spending money. They ruin possibly good games with this mindset.

      If its microtransactions that are complete cosmetic then im fine with it since it wont effect gameplay or ruin a game or be pay2win.

      A good game that does microtransactions is overwatch
      A bad game that does microtransactions is warframe
      Round_Dice 5 days ago#106
      zxxcman posted...
      Why are you sullying the good name of Professor James Moriarty?


      I'm surprised the name wasn't taken already.
      Objects to story DLC, but supports microtransactions because he thinks they expand on the original game?

      Qy9hRuWrKjY2I
      "When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger." - Confucius
      Sbee 5 days ago#108
      Keep in mind battlefront 2 is pay2win and you tell me microtransactions aren't bad for the industry.
      I'm available for kids parties, public executions, and any mother's birthday for premium snuggles
      zxxcman 5 days ago#109
      Round_Dice posted...
      zxxcman posted...
      Why are you sullying the good name of Professor James Moriarty?


      I'm surprised the name wasn't taken already.


      Me too. Kinda wishing I took it myself.
      'None of those are FACT apart from house going to catch fire which could technically happen.' - edgyfury 22/10/2016
      'Please remove your signature' - edgyfury
      TinTin700 posted...
      MORIARTY 

      New User 
      User Since: Sep 2016
      Karma: 9
      Active Posts: 1


      Pulled out the alt account for this low quality bait I see?


      I heard everything is bait account nowadays, you sure you arent one of them casual bandwagoneers that repeat what others also claim?
      Fly high through Apocalypse Skies, fight for a world we must save.
      Like tears of a unicorn lost in the rain, chaos will triumph this day...APOCALYPSE
      #111
      (message deleted)
      Honestly, I couldn't care less if they included a whole bunch of microtransactions in multiplayer. But, if they started putting microtransactions into the single player... well, I would hope for another crash.
      1. Boards
      2. PlayStation 4 
      3. The hate towards Microtransactions is un-reasonable.