Be Excellent To Each Other

Grim...-o-note: This has been split from the Wonga Watch thread. Read on for thrilling talk about DLC, microtransactions and meta conversation!



Micro-transactions are The Worst Thing, but they're not micro if they're £8 each so everything is fine here!

I'd draw a line between nickle-and-diming-you-to-death actual genuine microtransactions vs genuine DLC as it should be done (i.e. some amount of money for quality extra added game content).

Remember when everyone hated DLC?

I wonder what's coming next make make us think micro-transactions are the way things should be.

This is pretty much the way decent simulators have worked since before the term Mictotransaction was coined.

No. Everyone always hated shite DLC (i.e. fucking horse armour and the like) but when did anyone ever hate good DLC (e.g. Fallout expansion packs)?

But it's okay to hate all MT just because?

Is it? Who actually said that?

I mean yeah, I think it is okay (depending on what your definition of micro transaction actually is) but I'm curious to see what you're actually arguing about here.

Myp, the person I was talking to / about.

Well why were you asking me why it was okay then?

Because we were talking about it?

Your edit robbed me of a Mum joke, you bastard.

Your mum had a bastard.

We were talking about DLC, micro-transations and (my perceived) differences between the two; I didn't step up and say, "I'm claiming all of myp's opinions as my own, please question me accordingly."

Who remembers when we used to be able to have a conversation without having each syllable we scribbled down micro-analysed?

Good times.

Who remembers when we used to be able to have a conversation without having other people's opinions assigned to participants just because they made a comment?

I was writing a long old post but gave up because I know it's ultimately pointless and it wasn't making much sense anyway.

I'm sorry for making assumptions on your opinion based on the conversation, Bamba (even if they turned out to be right, because I didn't know that at the time). Let's just carry on, shall we?

So. How come you don't think there's good MT? Something like when I bought a cool new type of weapon in some tower defence game I had, which I didn't need to win the game, but happily paid 69p for because it looked cool (and I liked the game anyway, which was free)? Or when I bought a new map in Bloons (I apparently have a thing for MT in tower defence games, so I'm going to think of another in a bit).

Ah! I bought a car in some mini racing thing I have because it looked a bit like my Tomcat, and I was fucked if I was going to pay 50,000 coins for it (I needed those coins to get better tyres and stuff). I didn't think that was too hateful.

You seem to have created a straw man argument here. I don't mind microtransactions for cosmetic items in games like Team Fortress 2, for example, if it keeps the main game free for me to play. I object to games being created in such a way so their very mechanics are designed around catching 'whales' and fleecing them for all their cash, much like a lot of freemium mobile games. It's preying on addiction, much like fruit machines and the like. It's quite a nuanced difference so I wouldn't expect you to understand.

A racing simulator isn't even a valid comparison, so I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here.

-edit- also I despise FULL PRICE games which then have microtransactions on top that you need to buy in order to progress without a hell of a lot of grind (see Forza 5).

And I'm sorry for my nit-picking being annoying. It just seemed like you wanted to be pissed at someone for not liking micro-transactions and if that was going to be me I at least wanted to be clear about exactly what position I was defending.



As I touched on above it comes down to your definition of micro-transaction. Which is a difficult basis because these things are just blanket terms with no genuine hard definition. For the sake of this conversation I'd be tempted to define DLC as something (an item, an upgrade, a level pack) you pay a set amount for once and then always have. MTs though are stuff like in game currency or packs of useable power-ups or whatever.

So, given that, I have MTs because there's no end to them. It's not like you buy a single specific item and then just have it forever which is a known cost (and which I think is generally fine). These endless micro-transaction are problematic because (a) it means you can't know how much the game would ever cost in the long run and (b) generally F2P games will be tilted towards these MTs at a basic design level; which necessarily destroys the balance of a game. Obviously it's possible to do MTs well, the same as it's possible to do shitty DLC, but the 'endless' nature of these MTs means you can't ever know whether you're getting decent value or not and, frankly, I don't trust the gaming industry enough with something like that.

Good post here.

I'm fairly sure you've said (more than once) you won't even try a mobile game that has "in-app purchases" on the description. Although perhaps I missed a joke - it doesn't really matter anyway.

Is DLC not just a MT but scaled up? A MT where you buy something, I mean, like in the examples I posted. You could say that the tracks you purchased took more work than the gun I bought in my Tower Defence game, but that might not be the case. It almost certainly is, but it might not be. So is "big" added content okay because of a perceived idea of the work it took to create it?

Totally agree with everyone about the "pay 69p to get more energy or wait five hours before you can play again thing, though".

Aaaand everyone is saying the same thing

It's possible I said that. I say a lot of things. Do I mean them all? Highly unlikely. You have met me, right?

Batting a thousand!

I don't actually mind a game saying it has IAP if it also costs money. Which sounds weird, but it's because in my experience if a game costs money up front then the IAP will be genuinely unnecessary cosmetic type nonsense (which I'll just ignore) or will otherwise not impact the core game. Conceptually I think it's a bit iffy of a developer to charge extra cash for useless tat but as long as it's easy to ignore I can't bring myself to care too much in reality.

Obviously someone could charge up front and then also put endless MTs front and centre but, for the moment at least, devs seem to understand that doing so will fuck up their reputation so it's not worth it. If that begins to change then my feelings and choices will move accordingly.

What will totally make me suspicious though is games that are free up front and have IAPs. Genuine free lunches are rare in life so that combination almost certainly means you're going to get hit for cash at a later point. If that's in the form of one off level pack unlock fees or whatever then fine--indeed that's my preferred model--but as soon as there's a mention of in game currency or cool down timers or whatever then I'll almost certainly uninstall your game because I won't have my enjoyment arbitrarily gated.

It's this kind of shit that makes people want to hurt you. Just FYI.

What about games that announce DLC before they're even released?

Bullshit, obviously. Carving up parts of the game to sell additionally is a shit practice.

What if the original game is cheaper because of it?

Yeah, that's generally fucking nonsense. I mean it could be legit; if the actual planned full game was nearing completion and they'd started thinking about what stuff they could do down the line that's fair enough, but if you're actually announcing it before the main game is even released then I think it's fair to assume you've purposely gated things off from each other purely to wring more cash out of the content.

For me this largely comes down to trust again. Without knowing the exact timescales of a project and what work started when you can't ever know the difference between cynical content-carving vs genuine supplementary design/development, but games publishers have done little to engender my trust so I'll generally assume the worst.

Does this ever happen?

A £20 game that has £20 DLC at launch? Sure, why not.

Your Mum keeps her initial cost down by charging seperately for extras.

She's a Dick Loving Criminal.

Level boost packs for Destiny. £25 a go. Blimey.

All the more ridiculous as actually levelling up that high doesn't take too long at all.

And if you buy the Taken King now it gives you an item to level up to level 25 immediately.

Its all about choice though?

If you want to pay to progress in a game is there really an issue? If the DLC provides good entertainment and hours of gameplay is that a problem? These days there are plenty of reviews online for these things that ensure you can be informed before you buy.

I guess if MT and DLC are key to making a paid "base" game better or avoid endless grind that that's when its no so good.

When it becomes pay to win in multiplayer then I think that it's a load of shite but I don't play those sorts of games anyway so I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where I'd really care about this. Meh.

Most PvP has level-specific items disabled by default anyway, so all it is is a timesaver for those who don't want the grind of levels 1-25. I would hope the cost is prohibitive enough that not many people will really do it.

If it means I get free expansion DLC for the next 12 months (as seems to be the case), then I'm all for it.

Mortal Kombat 11 has towers that are basically impossible to complete without rare items which you get in loot crates, according to Reddit though, so take it with a pinch of salt perhaps.

Based on what one guy said who'd played for three hours.

I am "eh" on the whole MK11 MTX thing. As long as putting a boot in someone's face doesn't cost me money (or, perhaps more importantly, no-one can pay to put a better boot in my face) I'm cool with it. Shiny cosmetics, SP power-ups and finisher instructions are fair game, IMO.

In a game that already costs £45-50?

I fell down a rabbit hole of terrible articles and comments reading One Angry Gamer trying to find some evidence to back up this Reddit post. Do not ever read that site, it should come with a health warning.

As long as you don't have to buy them. If it's stopping the game costing £70-80 then I'm all for it.

What's stopping the games without microtransactions from costing £70-80?

I am.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't class £25 as micro transaction!

You could get 2 and a half full games for that.

I dunno! Games are absurdly cheap. I hate to think how far behind inflation they are.

Or about 15 from the steamy piles thread.

If you don't know then it's probably not all that credible to suggest that microtransactions are the reason your game doesn't cost more.