How Microtransactions are Invading Single-Player Games

Microtransactions are already a popular business model in online games, but they are making their way into single-player titles - here's why that's a problem.

[UltraNova]

True quality SP games without any milking schemes are becoming a rarity, with just a handful devs committed to them left...

[HaveSumNuts]

IMO: Only free to play mobile games should have microtransactions in single player, now fully priced AAA titles feel like f2p games just with good graphics.

[opc]

What are you thoughts on AAA games that cost anywhere between $5 and $50 because of how old they are?

I hope someone answers. You guys buying at full price on release day need to understand that you're paying a premium to play it right away. If the price and amount of content bother you, wait a month for it to drop to $40, or wait a year for it to drop to $30, or wait longer to get it at 80% off.

[HaveSumNuts]

I feel like if I payed for game, I payed for the game. So why would I have to pay more for the game to play the game?

@opc I never bought a game on launch ever or spent any money on a microtransaction or cosmetic. I'm really old school when it comes to that stuff. I'm just upset with the way gaming is going, example buying the full game is not buying the full game anymore. After 1 year a game will still cost full price because it's a definitive/complete edition or some shit.

[opc]

dude, just wait and buy the deluxe version with everything included when it's on sale for $11

ignore their MTs.

ACO has 907865894635 pieces of armor in the base game. Try not to get anxiety because you're missing out on a five sets of "edgy" armor.

[opc]

Also I want to point out that you don't have to pay more to play these games. Just play the game you bought.

[opc]

but what definitive edition or complete edition released a year or more after initial release cost $60? The only games I ever see that rarely drop in price are Nintendo first party and activision games

[rainslacker]

Luckily most of the SP games I play either don't have them, or the one's they do have are so inconsequential, I don't ever feel like I'm missing out on content that should be in the game. On top of that, the games aren't designed in such a way to be tedious without paying. The closest game with excessive MT that I can think of that I like is Dead or Alive, which took outfit DLC to new heights.

[Hardiman]

This shit just gets on my nerves! MT's have no business being in a full priced game, especially a SP game! Ubi I'm looking at you because you do more SP games and I get them all used so you won't cash in! That's my go to if a publisher/dev have them in their games. I just go second hand!

That's another reason I'm such a PlayStation fan, they still put time and money into quality SP games and don't nickel and dime you. Jesus just imagine Aloy's bows or attires hidden in packs or the same with Kratos in GOW.

[opc]

I keep seeing this comment. "Fully priced"

what is that price? $60? $50?

ACO has already been on sale for $40 and it's absolutely packed with quality content. Game the system, buy it now and ignore the MTs. Or wait until the game is $8 for the deluxe version with everything included. FFS if you wait long enough Ubi will give it to you for free.

[Traecy]

I totally agree!! AC:O has so much content & I ignore it's MTs.The game is fun!

[opc]

Going back through the years I got Blacklist for free, AC3 cost me $7.50 with a GPU, last year Watch Dogs and AC4 were free at christmas, and this year I got Far Cry 3 for like $5, I'm on the Streaming beta for ACO.

Let the casual players fund them on release day. you guys here should know better. Wait for sales, bundles, and giveaways.

Loot boxes in MP games are absurd and it's gambling. but It's nutty to me that Ubisoft gets accused of cutting content to sell as DLC and MTs while simultaneously being criticized for making their games too big.

[starchild]

I agree. People blow that stuff waaay out of proportion. I rarely buy DLC, but in most games I don't even really notice it's there. I can honestly say it doesn't affect my experience to any real degree.

What really matters is whether the content on offer is worth the asking price to you. Assassin's Creed Origins has so much content for $60 and it's enjoyable to me. It dwarfs most other games. So do I care that there's an extra layer of non critical stuff that people who are so inclined can play around with and help fund the production of more great games? Not at all.

There's simply no rational standard here. People will pay $60 for an 8 to 12 hour game with little replay value, yet another game that offers 120 hours of gameplay is suddenly the worst thing in the world if it has post-release DLC or trivial microtransactions.

It's simply content being packaged in a variety of ways. We have episodic games, short one and done games, huge games with hundreds of hours of playtime, games with a short campaign along with substantial online modes, games with small post release dlc, games with no campaign and only online multiplayer modes, games with large post release DLC and games with normal or long campaigns with an extra layer of trivial microtransactions for those who want them.

I don't see any inherent issue with any of them. They are just different ways to deliver content. It's up to us consumers to decide whether the content is something we think is worth our money.

The only things that matter are:
1. The developers are able to deliver the game how they see fit.
2. The developers are clear about how their game is being delivered.
3. Consumers freely decide whether it's something they want to buy or not.

[Zeke68]

Only solution is that we all stop buying these games until the MT's are removed ! And that's easier said than done because if 20% of all buyers out there ignore this, these companies still think it's a good idea to include them...

[opc]

buy them years after release when they are $5

[Zeke68]

Yeah if everyone thinks like you the entire game industry will go under.

[opc]

or they'll stop putting MTs in their games...

the very thing that everyone here is crying about every single day.

[Zeke68]

@opc
I agree that they should scrap MT's once and for all. I just meant, the state gaming industry is in now is a dangerous one. We, the hardcore gamers more and more ignore games with intrusive MT's and at the same time we tell the casuals to watch out for them.
But if the hardcore gamers stop buying all these games, and the casuals start to buy the games for maximum 5 bucks, you'll soon see a gaming scene riddled with cheap crapware, and a few, very few high cost productions. And those high end products will be less and less eager to take chances because they need to get their money back so the investors are happy...
And that means less and less people will be interested in gaming overall and the downwards spiral can go faster than we can imagine or wants it to be.
So I hope most people do what I do, support studios like Santa Monica, Naughty Dog, Insomninac and so on with day 1 or first week buys to support a healthy industry but not the MT riddled companies so they loose enough money short term that they will revalue their plans and go back to a more consumer friendly agenda again !
But buying all games years later for a few bucks will ruin all the companies, as these games costs millions of dollars to make, we just need to choose wisely who we support these days. :) Fun or Greed - it's up to us consumers to help shape the future of gaming.

[Traecy]

I'm guessing that's a good thing but it didn't matter to me because I always ignored MT's,they never hindered my gameplay what so ever.

[FPS_D3TH]

Good thing my backlog of great singleplayer games is immense. I mostly focus on multiplayer or “games as service” and their live events but even they are growing thin with my patients for bs monetizations. I’m fine with waiting until single player games become dirt cheap if they want to stick in monetization crap.

[Fist4achin]

I don't pay extra for anything, but I thought it would be hilarious if your character started out nude because you couldnt pay for their clothes at the start of a game.

[CorndogBurglar]

Uh.....welcome to 2016?

MT's in single player games are not new in any way and are certainly not "making their way into SP games" anymore.

This has been going on and it sucks. But clearly people keep paying for them.

Either way, where has this guy been for the past few years?

[AustinBreakwell]

They've certainly existed, but they've only recently become more of an issue in single-player games, because they're progressing beyond simple cosmetics into mechanics that fundamentally shape the design philosophy behind big titles. "Invading", in this case, more means that this more extreme form of MTs is making its way into single-player games.

[rainslacker]

Do we need an article to tell us this? This has been happening since last gen. In fact, the first non-mobile game to actually get criticized for this in a big way was a SP game.

[michellelynn0976]

If the MT are optional, then ignore them and have fun. It's when they're mandatory, that's when I have a problem with MT.

[AK91]

Unfortunately your about 3-5 years late when it comes to figuring this out.

[AustinBreakwell]

The argument isn't that microtransactions haven't existed in them until now, but that they generally haven't been that big of a deal until recently when whole games have been designed around loot boxes and monetization schemes. Microtransactions are "making their way into single-player games" in the sense that *true* microtransactions are.