I honestly think that an increased retail price for a game which gives you all the content through free digital upgrades and DLC.

Pay-to-win should not exist EVER it is ridiculous that people have the opportunity to better themselves in game with zero effort.

It is such a turn off knowing that some developers are making their games 'pay to play' online. It is absolutely ridiculous... The whole pay to play online thing for Phantasy Star Universe was not a hit; maybe that's why they had to turn off the servers because they weren't making enough money...

It comes down to supply and demand.

Pay less for a game, but pay to play.
OR
Pay money up front ($60) but not pay to play.

Notice I said pay less for the game but pay to play. That would be perfectly fine, but you can't have both ways or else gamers won't buy your game!!

Anyone with me?

Now they are just wanting/getting more money from the games, kind of like clash of clans on the iphone.

Nothing is ridiculous just do what I do go with the flow if you wanna know something that's ridiculous we should talk about the fellow economy

I find it amazing how companies do this.

I pay 60$ for a game, if youre going to shove the dlc or item down my throat or give people who bought it have a major advantage over the person who hasnt bought it ruins games.

An example is Call of Duty, if you buy prestige edition you can get a camera and a poster. Its really stupid.

But nonetheless if a company makes a solid game, makes everything balanced out and doesnt charge a ridiculous amount im somewhat okay with it.


Just surprises me they want to make you buy the game and then still give them more money.

I have to say I dislike this the concept of micro transactions. It's absolutely ludicrous this has been implemented into so many game genres, it isn't even funny. I'm already paying a hefty price of 60 bucks for a brand new game, but if I don't purchase the dlcs, I won't expect to get the full game experience that the developers intended to create. Capcom also has enough nerve to ship dlcs on discs and claim that you have to unlock it just to use it. That is why companies such as Capcom are in financial stress, they've lead to this oblivious path to squeeze as much money from a dying cash cow as possible. I do applaud the DLC content that actually adds new content worth buying, but it doesn't conflict with the main game and is only optional to buy. Bethesda does a great job of doing this (Excluding their horse armor dlc...), they add digital content that actually brings new items, locations, and mechanics into their games. A guy on youtube that goes by ReviewTechUSA does a wonderful job of explaining on how COD:Modern Warfare was the prime peak of gaming with the newest gen and how many companies tried to copy that whole fps formula. He also explains about the whole issue behind micro transactions and dlcs.

Video:

I dislike the idea of Microsanctions, If I pay for a game I want the full game, Not a small percent of the game.

I am personally not a fan of the whole concept of micro-transactions. It feels a little underhanded to me, like we are not getting the full game when we actually spend a good amount of money buying it. I used to be able to put up with DLC packs as long as the developer makes the pack after the game is released but micro-transactions just seem to encourage pay to win. A player should be able to progress through the ranks and unlock new things through actually putting hours into the game and not by just paying some money through a micro-transaction. It discourages players from actually trying to reach that goal legitimately and kind of just ruins the notion of fair play in general.

Now.. while not liking it i can put up with micro-transactions in free to play games as long as they don't have too much of a significant impact on gameplay. Such as costumes for characters and potential resurrection items for PvE environments. It doesn't really make the player using them overpowered yet gives them the option to support the company and have access to minor benefits because of it. The people making the game are a company... so they do need to make money somehow or the game wouldn't be able to function. So it's either micro-transactions or changing to a subscription or buy to play module. If many of their players are there just because it's free to play (which is the case with many F2P games) they will loose a lot of business, which is never a good thing. Yet far too often i see developers of free to play games locking vital game-play features to micro-transactions, which is just... outright ridiculous. As G_Man said, players often spend more money on a free to play game then buying a game right out.

When it comes to buy to play or subscription based games micro transactions should be just out of the question though. You have already payed the company money for buying the game.. wanting more out of you is unethical. I understand that the company making the game wants money, but come on now.. take ethical responsibility into account. I purchased the game from you so i expect to be able to play the same content, on the same playing field as everyone else. When a company includes DLC or 'Expansions' i usually question the amount of effort and time that they have put into it, if they spent a good 6 months developing this then fine.. i may pay $5 for it as long as it doesn't effect players without the DLC. Yet if they do something like EA did with Battlefield 4, announcing a DLC pack BEFORE the game is released i can't help but sigh. Yet when they include micro-transactions, be it with DLC or without it i find that they are taking it a little too far.

Here is an example.

Elder Scrolls Online


To sum it up

Microtransactions can be perfectly fine if used in the correct way. Games that have microtransactions should NOT be pay-to-win. You shouldn't only be able to get the best gear in the game by buying it. Everything should be obtainable in one way or another. I think that the best microtransaction game out there right now is League Of Legends. The game is free to play and the only thing that you can buy with money are skins that change your champions appearance. It doesn't give someone an advantage over another player which keeps the game fair. Microtransactions that give you a huge advantage over another player ruin games and if they are pay-to-win I won't go near the game.

I am not a big fan of this concept. They did this for games like DC Universe for the PlayStation and it ended up being a waste of money. When you buy a game you should only have to pay that initial price and then be able to play it. I buy Xbox live for a reason, so why would i have to pay for that yearly, buy the game, and then buy the service for the game on top of my subscription to Xbox live. I believe this is the direction games are headed, and the money is going to start to add up.

---

-TTG_Splice-