Arguing about stuff: it's the new having sex. Well, not quite, but we couldn't very well have a column in the magazine dedicated to having sex, now, could we? Not till the next Dead or Alive game, anyway.
This month's Hot Topic sees Log and Jonty clashing sabres over the prickly question of whether you should be invited to buy in-game doodads after you've parted with several banknotes for the game itself. Let the tournament begin. You can vote on the winner in our poll, over the page.
They enable joyless grinding
Developers: do you want me to pay to skip areas of your game? Okay. But first, tell me why you put that stuff in your game in the first place. Was it to create a game with an artificial sense of endlessness? Take Assassin's Creed III with its Erudito Credits. There are 50 levels, and 50 prestige ranks. That's 2,500 levels. Letting me buy my way along an artificially endless corridor like that is an insult.
I don't mind the odd unlock-style cheat that doesn't feel like it's defining the game. And I do understand that microtransactions can be a valuable way for games to get a free-to-play following, before aiming for the coin jugular.
But it's so hard to get right. CSR Racing on iOS is the top-grossing game, despite being a horrific, mindless 30-second loop of pedal tapping. It's profitable because natural, non-purchased progress is deliberately hobbled. Meanwhile, beautiful little games like Punch Quest get nothing, because they're too generous with their in-game currency.
That's what I hate: microtransactions make it okay to dick over the non-paying gamer. To make them weaker, slower, behind. They're not a cheap way out for the impatient, they're an active incentive for developers to waste our life with aggressive grinding that we can only ever escape if we're rich. And yeah, I get that that's how life works. That's why I choose to play videogames instead.
17 comments so far...
RHPSAUCE on 23 Nov '12 said:
My problem isn't with people being able to buy something sooner because they have more money than sense, my problem is when the only way to get items are through real money. Happy Wars being a good example, If someone wants to buy the in game currency that's fine but there is a whole section of the game I can't use because I refuse to buy a second form of currency that isn't obtainable any other way!
Because they have money I have to be fine with getting killed in one hit over and over, it's just ridiculous that we the customers and fans can be treated like this.
FishyGinger on 23 Nov '12 said:
I can't really vote because you're effectively saying the same thing with different words. Yes but only if done right.
I'm not someone who apparently hates all forms of dlc, brands everything as milking and thinks all game developers are b*stards. As such if a game is made properly without anything cut but they try to sell me some bunny ears for ezio to wear costing twelvety seven microsoft points I don't really care so long as it's not slammed in my face like fable 3 had it (Hello sir, I'm your butler and welcome to the menu screen, would you like a new dog? No? Ok then. I see you're going into the settings menu, a new dog would be nice with that change of audio volumes).
As for unlocks like the bf3 mp packs, well it doesn't really make a difference. Rubbish people will still be rubbish and good people will still be good and if someone doesn't have time I don't blame them. None of it is essential so I can avoid it all.
If it's done properly.
Plamsa wing on 23 Nov '12 said:
Personally I hate the idea, being able to buy your way through ranks and obtain their weapons with a mere click of a button is something that rips the enjoyment out of the game.
Particularly when used in multi-player games, for obvious reasons. For example, when used on a game like Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2, both of which have these so called "shortcut" packs, it gives on unfair advantage to those that thrive on instant gratification.
While I use Mass Effect 3's MP packs as an example alot, it's also a great example of how it can go too far. That's basically just clever gambling on EA's/Biowares part. It's completely random as to what you get.
I could go on, but it gets me how developers/publishers can pretty much rip people off, without anyone batting an eyelid. Paying for something you've already bought, it's just stupid, really, really stupid. There really no other word I can use.
I will point out, that I don't mind proper DLC like those from Fallout/Elder Scrolls. That to me is worth buying. Anything else, be it costumes, weapon skins, disk locked content, etc, is to me, a poor excuse at making money.
OXM ETboy on 23 Nov '12 said:
Heh, a fair point.
FishyGinger on 23 Nov '12 said:
Is that not down to the user though Plasma and not the seller. There's a five pence coin on my desk (doesn't work on the vending machine outside the office
) and I try and sell that for 2 quid is it me being a greedy horrible person or the customer being an idiot?
dj1917 on 23 Nov '12 said:
If you sold someone a 5p piece for £2 they are probably an idiot, yes, but you would definitely be a bastard.
CunningSmile on 23 Nov '12 said:
God I hated that, never have I played a game before where deciding to pause or just risk getting killed whilst I popped to the loo was actual a decision.
I'm also ashamed to say I bought the dog
FishyGinger on 23 Nov '12 said:
Oh Cunning. Oh no. You're not gonna live that one down easily.
On a side note, I have a shiny 5 pence coin for sale. 2003 model thats one of a million. Only 1 in stock so going fast. Due to inflation it's now 2.50 but I can do you all a deal.
Please don't ban me Kernow...you can have it for 1.50.
Thos. on 23 Nov '12 said:
I find the types of games that have this 'feature' don't actually interest me anyway. The most excited I've been about a game for quite a while is finding out that Julian Gollop is remaking Chaos: http://www.gollopgames.com/
Plamsa wing on 23 Nov '12 said:
That's a good point, but it makes neither party better than the other. You'll try and take advantage of the others idiocy and the idiot being the idiot he/she is, would think of that as being a great deal.
CunningSmile on 23 Nov '12 said:
In my defence I was hoping it would shut him up about the dog. No such luck.
And I have a dalmation in real life so the in game dalmation seemed like a good idea at the time.
Grummy on 23 Nov '12 said:
If handled properly, then basically all this is is DLC, and I've bought my share of content DLC, and would in the future too. If Bethesda released a monsters pack for 600 points tomorrow that added a dozen new enemy and monster types, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat because core Skyrim with more enemy variety would be a massive win for me. But if Fallout 4 came out with just bandits and deathclaws, and then Bethesda said it was another £3 to add Super Mutants to the game, I'd have to question them. That's taking a good thing and twisting it into something bad, greedy and desperate. I wouldn't ever expect Bethesda to do that however.
At this point I expect to hear people talk about Horse Armour, but as far as I'm concerned, that gets a pass. DLC was a new thing then, they were testing the waters on content and price to see what would work and what wouldn't, and they have learned from that, as evidenced by all their DLC since then being of an excellent cost-to-content ratio.
The real problem with this is that issue is that whilst DLC is an accepted part of the gaming machine, microtransactions are something different and are a questionable practice. Sure, f2p games work that way, and that's fine, except one day the major developers and publishers will start picking up on how well it does and move more in that direction. That is speculation of course, but this is where I refer to my favourite quote from John Ricitiello who basically said that F2P model would allow them (EA) to start charging people who play battlefield $1 for every reload. This is something he actually openly said earlier this year. Now, I don't expect that will actually come to pass, for one thing, I expect that each transaction would need a confirmation screen, which would kill any FPS game. If the game paused and popped up a confirmation screen each time you reloaded you would spend about 20 seconds shooting then 10 seconds in the confirmation process. I really don't think that will happen. BUT the fact that Ricitiello is talking about it proves that the big companies are going to deliberately look at all the ways they can utilize the F2P model, and not in a good way either. Next time any of you play a shooter, those of you going through Halo or Blops2 now, count how many times you reload in an average level, then count how many levels there are, then ask yourself how many times to plan to play it through, then do the maths. If you're reloading more than 40 times, you've already spent more money on the F2P model than you would have buying the game new. Again, I don't expect cost per reload, but the F2P model, done badly is a ludicrous rip off, and one that EA and Activision want to employ in all their games. I think I even heard EA talking recently about the future of Fifa being F2P. So how will that work? £1 per team? Seem fair right? Until you count all the teams currently in the game and it works out you're currently paying about 10p per team.
I had to vote no on this simply because whilst the principle of the microtransaction is solid (it is, after all, just DLC) in reality it will be abused, and it could kill off the biggest games in the industry. Which I can't see as being a good thing.
Grummy on 23 Nov '12 said:
f**k Yeah! Chaos owns.
lazercut123 on 23 Nov '12 said:
One word: no (unless it is DLC). Oh wait that was 5 words. ":shock: "
lazercut123 on 23 Nov '12 said:
Grummy, I just realised what your picture said, and my answer is no, I will not give babies drugs
ipsofacto on 23 Nov '12 said:
Depends on the content... A Bethesda-style expansion with a ton more hours of gameplay, yeah, I'd say so.
Spartan Edge on 26 Nov '12 said:
I especially have an issue with games that angers me,is letting you unlock everything as long as you don't mind paying for it,such as in Battlefield 2,3 etc.. Now if people want to waste their money taking shortcuts through their games(why bother buying & playing the game if your gonna do that,but i digress),then thats up to them,as it effects no-one else. My issue is when they let you do it in multiplyer games.It takes many months of playing to unlock all these items by playing the game in multiplayer games,so to let someone have all those unlocks because they've paid for them Its basically paying the company to let you cheat as far as i'm concerned & is a very questionable practice that the companys shouldn't even condone,let alone facilitate it. All it does is build resentment up from the people who want to play the game properly & may make a lot even think 'Why even bother' They allow it for greed,& thats the wrong reasons..