Microtransactions are here to stay

And it's the truth. Microtransactions are making companies a lot of money so why should they stop? It wouldn't make any sense.

[UCForce]

It's not going anywhere. But Microtransaction shouldn't belong in AAA. It only work in Free To Play model.

[UltraNova]

Any MT that offers an unfair advantage to those who buy them cannot work in either the AAA or F2P model.

Its clear that these so called whales, (who are obviously easily manipulated people) are making devs 'blood thirsty' so its about time someone forced devs to put a spending limit in their games per user and platform holders to expand their parental controls to give the option to block MT or provide a way to put a limit on in-game purchasing.

If authorities or people responsible on regulating these scenarios wont do anything this will turn into a prime example of apathy leading to uncontrollable greediness untill the whole thing falls apart; and thats core low-middle class gamers abandoning gaming due to the insurmantaple cost.

[Cobra951]

I think you meant "insurmountable"; and I agree completely. So-called "AAA" games will become something else entirely if this practice isn't restrained. I'd hate to see them become a playground for gambling addicts and people who don't care about money, to the detriment of the rest of us.

[Eonjay]

It only works because gamers buy them. If anyone here thinks gaming companies are so powerful that MTs can perpetuate without our support they are ignorant of their own power. Thats why they constantly manipulate it to push the envelope. From COD to SoW to Forza to Battlefront, they are getting more aggressive on purpose to find the point where our indifference turns to retribution and toe to toe they can not survive us. In the end, we as gamers are only fighting against our own patience. Remember 2013 when the community nearly killed the Xbox One and forced Microsoft to backtrack. That is the kind of power we have.

[fiveby9]

MT's not going anywhere? Depends on what you mean by MT's. I think some MT's could be viewed as destructive for a companies product and do more harm than good for their bottom line. I'd like to think randomized loot based MTs related to progression systems like found in SW BF2 are a bridge too far. I think EA thought they could get away with anything. We shouldn't let such articles dissuade us from pushing back and keeping our wallets closed. An article like this tries to convince us that MT systems are some sort of "fait accompli". It is not.

[indysurfn]

We just stopped EA's Microtransactions by far the biggest publisher. I do not give in to what a executive says are an article. Most people forget while reading that 85% of ALL ARTICLES are PAID FOR and passed off as neutral legit articles.

This happens when you vote loudly, and with money votes (not buying product).
No matter the few sellouts that defend this kind of crap and buy it we will always win.

Some will say "it is going to happen so except it" as long as you don't let your mind become defeated like theirs we will win. "It will happen, Except it" came from the executives.

We stopped it at with Star wars the biggest IP on the PLANET from the largest publisher on the planet!

STOP REPEATING WHAT MARKETING EXECUTIVES PREACH!
Same thing happened with Microsoft's reveal. We won! They backed off too.

[Lennoxb63]

Microtransactions should only be to speed up customization options. Not for weapons or gear you haven't earned.

[UCForce]

I remember the good old day that we unlocked cosmetics for free in AAA games.

[DigitalCentralMedia]

This is true but that doesn't stop big companies from adding them to their "AAA" games.

[Godmars290]

The only logic is to make money. If they're making more money through MT after selling a $60 game, then MTs will be in the next $60 they sell.

[indyman7777]

Or in the case of Star wars battlefront it will be according to a couple reviews the next $2,100 per customer.

[darthv72]

"It only work in Free To Play model." while I agree... that may be how you and I and others see things but that's not how the publishers see things.

All companies like $$ so no matter how big or small the game is, if there is a chance to get some extra $$ from the buying public, you can bet they will do it.

[indysurfn]

We just stopped EA's Microtransactions by far the biggest publisher. I do not give in to what a executive says are an article. Most people forget while reading that 85% of ALL ARTICLES are PAID FOR.

This happens when you vote loudly, and with money votes together.
No matter the few sellouts that defend this kind of crap we will always win.

Some will say "it is going to happen so except it" as long as you don't let your mind become

defeated like theirs we will win. "It will happen, Except it" came from the executives.

We stopped it at with Star wars the biggest IP on the PLANET from the largest publisher on the planet!

STOP REPEATING WHAT MARKETING EXECUTIVES PREACH!
Same thing happened with Microsoft's reveal. We won! They backed off too.

[The 10th Rider]

We haven't stopped it yet. It's temporarily removed. We'll see how things look when they reveal what their plans are for a revised system.

[Mikelarry]

until they push so far that either gamers walk away or they become regulated to hell, we are seeing examples of this right now so watch this space.

[Lennoxb63]

It's either MTs or $80-$100 games becoming the standard. I have no problem with MTs as long as they are implemented correctly. It shouldn't be giving anyone an competitive edge.

[UCForce]

My solution is this : 60$ Game and 20$ expansion pack.

[ecchiless]

How much cost HZD?

[Cobra951]

I've said this before: If they could charge a lot more up-front for games without seriously hurting unit sales, they would be doing so. The price is established by what the market will bear. And that price has nothing to do with lucrative microtransactions. If the market could bear a $200 price on games, we'd get $200 games, and paid DLC, and microtransactions--because, why not? What's to stop them from doing exactly the same thing if games were more expensive to buy? Nothing. It's not about fairness. It's about money.

[Many-hat5]

Of course, you are correct.

[InTheZoneAC]

Wrong, movies are $20 and are doing just fine. Don't be conditioned to believe games need to cost more, that's ignorant.

[DragonKnight]

"It's either MTs or $80-$100 games becoming the standard."

There are many things wrong with your position here.

First, no, it's not. Why? Well let's get into it.

I can assume you said this because you believe, erroneously, that publishers MUST do this. Games are sooooo expensive to make right? Wrong. Games cost no more to make now than they did 20 years ago, and that's a real fact you can look at yourself. A game that would cost $45 million in '97, with inflation costs $70 million today. That's standard. And, the majority of a budget that goes into games is not in the development costs. It's in the marketing costs, even with partnerships the marketing budget is usually still twice that of the development costs and it has no reason to be.

Second, software sales have gone UP over time, not down. More people are gaming, and buying more games, so more revenue is being made. The problem is the industry is too greedy. Publisher avarice is at an all time high and it's disgusting.

Next up is the fact that many publishers don't even pay taxes, they instead use tax havens to maximize their profits. Scum.

And finally, we are not getting quality titles with games that have these MTs in them. The money is quite literally NOT being spent on making better games.

So with all that being said, do explain why MTs are necessary else we need a price increase.

[bigmalky]

My thoughts exactly. The marketing budgets are huge and unnecessary. Gaming is basically mainstream, and most gamers know what is being released through basic media outlets, never mind hiring A-List actors, paying off journalists for great reviews even if their game is last year's repetitive tripe and blowing a wad of cash on music video budget style advertisements.

Meanwhile, it's revealed that most AAA devs get treated like veal, locked in an office for days on end with little sleep and pushed to their.limits at crunch time to get ready for release day, that is probably far too soon to get a working game on the shelves, but hey, publishers know better and tell them gamers are dumb, they'll accept a day one, day thirty, day forty five and day ninety patch (which is an extra three months of crunch time)...

Oh, and can you squeeze in this little business model we came up with, possibly ruining your creation so the shareholders can get a new gold plated paint job on their mazzerati, k, thanks, see you again in three days to start next year's shooty gun, collect the hundred McGuffins, clear the map marker crap we sell these idiots every year.

Sorry, got a bit carried away, but yeah, all the above.

[Many-hat5]

I'm not so sure. I think all we need to do is let companies like EA, continue being what they are. Give them enough rope and they'll surely hang themselves. Even those who spend now, will wise up eventually. I ultimately have confidence in gamers.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

not going anywhere but that back to phone games only

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

I do see why companies have MTs in their games. However, my issues with MTs is not their presence in games, but rather the way MTs are being implemented. MTs should be mainly for cosmetics and have no RNG attached.

[Dragonscale]

Its not mt's per se, more how they are implemented. But adding a free to play economy to full price aaa's is just scummy tbh.

[chris235]

right. and i‘m sick and tired of kids thinking gaming is a charity. if you don‘t like certain practices: don‘t buy the product. if you buy it and then complain about it, you gave already your signal of „i‘m ok with your practices“. and it doesn‘t matter if you wait for a sale to pick it up. wrong signals is all you will be giving if you don‘t control your impulse to play it anyway at one point.

but people are people. they don‘t work that way. this is why we got the situation we‘re in.

[subtenko]

water is wet.....

[InTheZoneAC]

They're not going anywhere because whales that spend thousands every year will say they can't stop and will come up with every excuse for why they can't stop spending

[Retroman]

"Microtransaction here to stay"

Oh well there goes the neighborhood .
and ending for video gaming as we knew it.

[Nodoze]

When they are tied to the CORE PROGRESSION of the game, sorry but no Fing way.

Hey EA call Activision and ask them about the Overwatch model. Not that I like them either way, just that one is the lesser of two evils.

[BenjaMan64]

Companies like EA will just adapt and evolve. Events such as the recent backlash over Battlefront II's microtransactions is for them a learning experience on what they can and can't do. They'll come up with smarter, sneakier ways to monetize their products.

[Felsager]

Micro Transactions only work on free to play games like Warframe. Even Warframe managed microtransactions the right way.

[r3f1cul]

its gonna make sense when the gaming market crashes again which at this point seems inevitable to me personally :/

[Knightofelemia]

Microtransactions should stay on the free games you play on a cellphone they have no place on a console or pc. If a game has microtransactions then I expect as a consumer the game to be cheaper then paying $80 Canadian for a new game. The microtransactions can off set the actual cost of the game and make the game cheaper to purchase.

[Duraji]

If they're here to stay, I'm not. The indie revolution can't come soon enough.