It’s going on three years since my last blog on micro-transactions (1). Rather than considering the wise council of good ‘ole beans, the AAA industry’s love of this roguish practice has only intensified. Perhaps my advice didn’t get through to them due to my supposed lack of popularity (very doubtful!). Regardless, since that time of covering the most controversial uses of it around the time of Xbox One’s launch there’s been a lot of nuance applied to it since then. While I still stand by the cautionary attitude I had then, my frustration has been boiling more and more as games I truly adore continue adopting it whilst dropping traditional forms of DLC to ameliorate this “micro-inclusion.” I want to try to delve into what feels like my vacillating stance on this topic in the hopes of receiving some constructive responses from you, the reader(s), regarding the current climate around this.
Let me clarify what I stand absolutely resolute on: I disregard the bunkum thrown out by publisher/developer types about how this “optional” content has no impact on the game at large. This verisimilar assumption tossed around by AAA industry heads may feel reassuring to regurgitate ad infinitum, but it’s only considering one dimension of this issue. Let’s be honest: if it really were this casual thing in free-to-play (F2P) games why would so many of them be so profitable? The thousands upon thousands of F2P titles have been built from the ground up with siphoning cash from the consumer in mind, whether it be via gameplay timers, cosmetic bundles, or something else. And if a F2P model of some sort is incorporated into a premium-priced game, it’s only reasonable to then assume the game’s systems have been tarnished—even if slightly—by this inclusion for profitable ends. It’s not some casual thing with the publisher saying “I mean…if you want to dump some more coin go right ahead.”
There’s a lot statistical and scientific research revealing the more insidious nature of micro-transactions too. The last time I talked about this I was pretty lax in regards to links. I want to make up for that here; accordingly, I’m going to provide several links expounding the complexities of the practice from both psychologically-focused and business-oriented perspectives (2) (3) (4) (5). And to the gamers who still outright defend them in premium-priced games as “just a choice,” you may now be convinced that they could be considered the crack-cocaine of games. Sure, no one’s putting a gun to someone’s head to FORCE these tiny purchases but we can’t disregard the psychology behind this idea and we especially shouldn’t stop talking about it. No amount of appeals from Ron Swanson can mollify the genuine concern of players either (6).
None of this is to say F2P ought to be abolished in general. As I’ve said before, the freemium model in…well…free games makes sense because that’s the company’s main line of revenue. An entry-level fee of $0 means you ought to prepare for this kind of subtle manipulation going in. Many MMO’s have also been adopting this method, distancing themselves away from the mid-2000’s model: base game for fifty dollars, another ten/fifteen in monthly subscription fees, and another x amount of money for every expansion. I’d say this jump from monthly subscriptions to a freemium cosmetic model COULD be more beneficial to the general consumer base long-term. The MMO developer can still continue bringing those beefy updates every month without the expectation of taking almost two-hundred dollars from all dedicated players yearly. So then the question becomes: what have recent premium-priced action titles adopted from these MMO’s?
“If they keep it at a cosmetic level, it’s not a big deal for me in sixty-dollar FPS/TPS titles.”
Perhaps this is closer to the mindset some of you have versus outright ignoring the issue like I mentioned before. The game’s the same for everyone aside from spiffy looking weapons, armor, and/or animations. Granted, that’s a less-bad situation versus unconscionable pay-to-win schemes; however, I don’t like the notion of settling for a not-truly-egregious case. Here’s the problem: the integration of a F2P cosmetic element still breeds an environment of envy amongst budgeted gamers. A shooter supposed to be about exhilarating fun and shooting opponents in the face now has a haves versus have-nots undercurrent while playing. When publishers have decided to release their shooter at the premium price then what does it say about them incorporating this kind of artificial hurdle to what should be a premium experience? Even if you have an unmoving resolve that’ll never sway you to buying anything, the fact that there’s such a feature to TEST your will in the first place is the issue.
With this considered though, another factor has to be mulled over that was standard business practices for shooters in the past. My previous contention of haves and have-nots with cosmetic micro-transactions can be spun right back at me with one of the staples of the seventh generation: ten or fifteen dollar map packs. Herein lies the rub. While many first-person and third-person shooters relied upon map packs for that secondary line of revenue before, recent shooters like Halo 5: Guardians, Rainbow Six: Siege, etc. tried redressing the inclusion of micro-transactions by making all later-released maps and modes free (7) (8). When considering the new modes, maps, and updates that’ve been continuously rolled out there’s many parallels between modern MMO’s and AAA shooters these days. With this trend becoming more and more popular, my previous unease of this practice comes into question. Which is the lesser of two evils: the underhanded nature of a freemium model in place or purchasable map packs that are guaranteed to split the game’s community to some measurable degree? Should clemency be afforded to this newer standard if all the new maps and modes become gratis?
That’s not counting how people feel it ought to be considered when reviewing these titles either. Is a more hardline approach like Jim Sterling never allowing a premium-priced game with micro-transactions to win his GOTY Awards the best way to make a statement? Should it only affect score if it’s pay-to-win, otherwise not considered in scoring but only mentioned in the text? Looking at the individual cases between something like Overwatch or Rainbow Six: Siege is frustrating. When looking at the game proper, Siege is one of my favorite games to have released in 2015, yet the game’s tied with a rather greedy transaction system—micro-transactions, cosmetic packs, and a Season Pass. I dislike this aggressive monetary system but I’m constantly running back to playing it, cherishing all of the interlocking gameplay systems on display.
So it’s not hard to see how my general annoyance with this practice set in. It seemed simpler before to call for the kibosh on all freemium BS in premium-priced titles; however, I’ve had that sinking feeling of taking it more on a case-by-case basis. Because I’ve been on both sides of this divide. I remember the annoyance in playing Halo 3 Mystic Maps rarely with any of my friends, real-life or Xbox Live, because I was one of the few to make the early dive on it with ODST. Sure, there’s still all the other fun maps and modes too. But it was an experience that stuck with me and became a reoccurring theme throughout the seventh generation. It’s become rather…comfortable to get on Halo 5, R6: Siege, or whatever else and not have to make sure everyone bought x/y map pack beforehand. Splintered communities are a shame.
Even with that subjective consideration—which I’m sure occurred with a lot of you fellow online gamers during the past gen as well—it’s annoying to think that this new unremitting pesterer is the best solution. I guess it’s in part to the umbrage I take of the publisher’s usual attitude when discussing it too. I mean…really? There’s notifications on the console if you’re getting sleep-deprived and playing too long (9) but no kind of safeguard has been considered to refrain consumers from impulse buys worth hundreds of dollars (10)?
Perhaps my greatest compulsion to air these plaints is also a means to vent about getting ensnared by this practice before. It started casually with a three-dollar gold REQ pack purchase for Halo 5: Guardians. From there I gravitated to bigger purchases—often solely with XBL Rewards Credits—in titles like R6: Siege and Overwatch. I’ve provided some lifeblood to this system in the only way that matters to these companies: monetarily. I want to be honest about this because I hope my admonition of this practice doesn’t sound like it’s coming from someone on their ivory tower, because really it’s from someone who has dirt on his own hands.
Links:
1. http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...
2. http://www.tuw.edu/psycholo...
3. http://www.ijis.net/ijis10_...
4. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
5. https://software.intel.com/...
6. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
7. http://www.cinemablend.com/...
8. http://gamerant.com/rainbow...
9. http://www.geek.com/games/m...
10. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
The future is here! You can possibly work for Ikea... in Roblox!
Wccftech recently went hands-on with Elden Ring's upcoming massive Shadow of the Erdtree expansion ahead of its June 21st release.
Enter, Downward: Enhanced Edition as you leap off walls, slide down slopes and run, run, run as you set off on humanity’s final ever adventure
Hey, if Disney can exploit the Star Wars milking machine I can exploit my own blog-franchise's dumb titles. :P
I hope everyone enjoyed the blog. Please feel free to leave any comments and/or questions below. And I really, really mean that here b/c I hope to know what your approach to micro-transactions in AAA games has been. More hardline, nuanced, or easygoing response? Perhaps some wisdom you impart can help steer me, and many others in the N4G community, in considering this complex issue from here on out.
Despite my frustrations with these practices (particularly how they bog down natural reward design in games), I do think that cosmetic micro-transaction and loot box product models can be the lesser of two evils compared when practiced wisely and relatively fairly. Keeping a multiplayer game supported long-term and the player community united across all content is probably more important than a few cosmetics I wish I could unlock normally or earn faster.
I think when you add extremes and too many other monetizing elements of top of it, a line is crossed. Micro-transaction options over $50, $60 price tags, Season Passes, 100% randomized in-game unlocks, standalone packs, gameplay-altering items, etc. It just begins to feel greedy.
But if you keep things simple and try to provide a fairer experience toward players who are unwilling to buy micro-transcactions, it can be tolerable and acceptable.
"Should clemency be afforded to this newer standard if all the new maps and modes become gratis?"
I say yes. Especially in light of cosmetic only dlc affairs. Not splitting up the userbase is so important and remedies so many of the early last gen mp problems. It's the way forward and best practice in a not so perfect world.
#harambe