When are videogame micro-transactions ok?

[Quark 7,089]

o<(0_0)>o

I was thinking about how this year many video games have caused controversy because of their inclusion of micro-transactions and loot boxes. Games like Shadow of War, Star Wars Battle Front II, and Call of Duty WWII have caused a lot of uproar among gamers because of this practice. But when are micro-transactions ok? Are they even ever ok? I think that micro-trasnactions are ok when they only offer cosmetic items or when they give you good and reasonable expansions of a game. For example Overwatch loot boxes only contain cosmetic items like stickers and skins that don't affect the game. So if you want to get these items you either just play the game and earn them or you could purchase them. I think the loot boxes in Overwatch are perfectly fine because once you pay once for the full game, you will get all characters, maps, and game-play features without any extra cost. Another good example of good DLC is the Withcers 3, Horizons Zero Dawn, And The Last Of Us story expansions. All of these games ask you to pay 10-20 dollars extra for a huge extra chunck of video game that will take you hours to complete even though the base games were already fair and complete. The problem with games like Battlefront II and Shadow of War is that they make it very hard to earn free DLC so as to make you spend more money even though you already payed a lot of money for the base game. They also incorporate game-play items and features into they micro-transactions, giving players that pay more money an advantage and thus ruining the games. From now on you should be careful about what games you buy and support because these practices will dictate the future of micro-transaction in gaming. 

[Solitaiire 2,564]

I think it's only okay when it doesn't affect the game itself but more so the cosmetic look of it, when you start to add overpowered things for a cost, it breaks the balance, I mean, we already payed for the game and it's absolutely ridiculous to pay if you want to enjoy the game at its fullest, it should be more like an add-on not a necessary part

[Quark 7,089]

1 minute ago, Solitaiire said:

I think it's only okay when it doesn't affect the game itself but more so the cosmetic look of it, when you start to add overpowered things for a cost, it breaks the balance, I mean, we already payed for the game and it's absolutely ridiculous to pay if you want to enjoy the game at its fullest, it should be more like an add-on not a necessary part

Yes. This is basically what I said in my OP. I also think is ok for games to make you grind to unlock items as long as the grinding is fair and reasonable. If they make it impossible for you to want to or be able to earn something, then you know that they just want your money. 

[Solitaiire 2,564]

Just now, Quark said:

Yes. This is basically what I said in my OP. I also think is ok for games to make you grind to unlock items as long as the grinding is fair and reasonable. If they make it impossible for you to want to or be able to earn something, then you know that they just want your money. 

@ EA Games tho

[Trepadation 5,566]

If a game has micro-transaction then level up/unlocking items will take longer. It also makes a game pay-to-win. If you're spending $60 on a vanilla version of a game you shouldn't be spending more money for additional content (including cosmetics). .

[robbiemalik 780]

Overwatch has done it the best with cosmetics only and the rest of the maps and hero's are free, but what happens when people don't buy lootboxes? Like what's happening with star wars battlefront. I wonder if EA will say now we gotta charge for maps and hero's due to low sales

 

[tthen 4,621]

4 minutes ago, Trepadation said:

If you're spending $60 on a vanilla version of a game you shouldn't be spending more money for additional content (including cosmetics)

This. 

[Poissonche 12,365]

I don't think it's a good idea. I'll stick with playing Super Mario on my NES.

[Quark 7,089]

7 minutes ago, robbiemalik said:

Overwatch has done it the best with cosmetics only and the rest of the maps and hero's are free, but what happens when people don't buy lootboxes? Like what's happening with star wars battlefront. I wonder if EA will say now we gotta charge for maps and hero's due to low sales

 

If people don't buy loot boxes, it will send a message to developers that we don't want them. If the base game sells well, then they shouldn't have to worry about extra money. In the case of Battlefront, do you feel like the base game is complete at $60? if the answer is yes, then it would be fine for them to charge extra money for upcoming maps and characters. 

6 minutes ago, Poissonche said:

I don't think it's a good idea. I'll stick with playing Super Mario on my NES.

But wouldn't you want extra cosmetics or extra story expansions if your game already felt complete?

[Poissonche 12,365]

4 minutes ago, Quark said:

But wouldn't you want extra cosmetics or extra story expansions if your game already felt complete?

No. I guess I'm old-fashioned on this point, but no. I think the extra should be part of the game I already paid for.

[River 108,191]

I think it should remain with mobile games and multiplayer pc games but as some nice little extras that won't effect the game.

There's no reason why a rich person should be like level 100 because they payed for it while a poor person who plays everyday is barely level 30, just an example..

DLC are nice but they should give almost equivalent number of hours as the base game...

 

[Quark 7,089]

1 minute ago, Poissonche said:

No. I guess I'm old-fashioned on this point, but no. I think the extra should be part of the game I already paid for.

I get your point. But some of that extra expansions are made after they already made the full game, so basically they are working more to add to a game and it is up to you if you want to buy that extra experience. At least I think this is an example when DLC is ok. 

[robbiemalik 780]

Just now, Quark said:

If people don't buy loot boxes, it will send a message to developers that we don't want them. If the base game sells well, then they shouldn't have to worry about extra money. In the case of Battlefront, do you feel like the base game is complete at $60? if the answer is yes, then it would be fine for them to charge extra money for upcoming maps and characters. 

But wouldn't you want extra cosmetics or extra story expansions if you game already felt complete?

That's the thing some games like call of duty: black ops 3 and Overwatch has done amazing with lootboxes which is good and a bad thing. I don't mind paying money for boxes in overwatch for cool skins cause that revenue helps with hero's and maps, but compare to call of duty which is pay for boxes only to know that you didn't get the weapon you wanted is sad. 

If the game is successful than it should at least give free updates or reasonable price DLC that makes sense not just a cash grab which most games are doing now. Witcher 3 set the bar of having a game you can play for so many hours and have a 30 hour story expansion DLC for 20 bucks is insanely great.

 

 

[homomo 23,847]

Console games are never okay. If you’re paying $70-$100 for the game, it better be the full game. 

I think the only exception would be free games, such as App Store downloads and online game shops.

[Noctelus 2,818]

If they provide enough content to warrant full price then extra expansions/season pass are fine. Same applies to cosmetic stuff. I just don't like loot boxes, especially in single player games.