Microtransactions started popping up more in the 6th generation, with the power of the internet, players can spend money to expand on a game, adding more content. Expansions in video games aren't new existing in the 80s', and they usually give players new maps, characters, weapons and more. It was more common for PC games. Console games had expansions too, but they weren't downloadable, and instead were either installed into the console to be used on the disc or had other methods.
Let's skip to the 7th generation with the Xbox 360, Wii and PS3. Downloadable online content became a thing, and most companies hoped on it. Halo and Call of Duty are probably the best known examples. You could also purchase games from the store like retro games or completely new ones, this was the golden age of Xbox Live Arcade too me.
In this generation we saw the first microtransaction. In Elder Scrolls 4, Horse Armor was made available as DLC. While it is sited to be the worst DLC pack ever created, as it was cosmetic and didn't benefit the player, it was done to test the public's reaction.
Moblie games adopted this, as they were free-to-play. Notably Angry Birds.
Then, this is where things get out of hand quickly... EA were the most infamous when it came to these, such as games like the Simpsons: Tapped Out, which frequently encourages players to buy donuts (the game's premium currency.) Donuts can unlock new characters, items and more, but it's more forgiving as it is free. Dead Space 3 also encourages players to buy a gun, that makes the game easier. Just put in goddamn difficulties.
Fast forward, Loot Boxes are created. To get cosmetics and other content companies often charge you more money to do this. With things like time limits like "Only available for 7 days." This is a scam as it pressures players into buying items that won't be worth anything in the long run.
There is also the effect of could have on young children and people with extremely addictive personality traits. A prime example would be that thread for Transformers: Earth Wars:
Somebody spends over $200,000 on Transformers: Earth Wars
Children could be very effected cause it's very easy to purchase things off the services, and they just keep buying. Some companies thankfully refund people.
But, I didn't even mention Star Wars: Battlefront 2. When the game first released, it was immediately beaten into the ground due to bullshit unlock methods and the advantage given to players who bought everything. The game has improved, but it taught EA a lesson.
BUT... there is still companies like EA, Warner Bros. Interactive, Blizzard, Actvision, Epic Games, and many, many more.
Many people tried to get the ESRB to crack down on this, as technically a game like Madden or NBA 2K should be Rated Adults Only right? Nope. Because they consider it not gambling, and compared it to a raffle (however some groups consider this gambling too.) The ESRB did add a description for games that include microtransactions, cool?
Warner Bros. Interactive is probably the worst offender. With Easy Fatalities and adding microtransactions and loot boxes to a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.
This is too long.

In the end Microtransactions can be cool if they expand on content heavily, and reflect the asking price.
What do you think?

 

I don't have a problem with service and F2P games selling cosmetics and other stuff that doesn't have any actual effect on gameplay as long as there is no element of gambling involved. I do take issue with publishers selling service games with further monetisation for the full $50-60 though and single player games at that price point have no good justification for having that stuff in them at all.

Pay to win, lootboxes, card packs, premium currency or anything else that resembles gambling or involves gating progress behind money spent instead of reasonable time investment is fucking trash and any argument that this stuff is necessary to the business model of making good games at any scale is bollocks.

Proper game expansions aren't microtransactions by definition and, as stated above, have been around since the 80s. Anyone who has a problem with those as a concept or who thinks they are a relatively new thing is an idiot.

 

They suck

 

Maybe companies need to stop spending 140 million to make games. Maybe if their budgets were realistic, then they could actually make a profit when selling their games.

 

Pretty much my words and opinions.

 

They have no business being a in a video game as they only exist because companies are worthless greedy assholes. If they don't make much by selling the game for $60, then up the price of the game instead of nickel and diming people.

 

Microtransactions?

F*** 'em!
F*** that bulls***!!!

Shocking edit: OP, have you asked this before? I got a strong sense of dejavu.
That is it! I have had it! I've accepted that sometimes I have dreams that predict the future. Unfortunately only minor things.

 

Pretty much this. I'd like to add that microtransactions are bad for the industry as a whole, because while they may provide short-term profits, in the long run, the industry's going to piss off the customer base.

 

Could be worse. It could be life-changing shitty predictions.

 

Microtransactions can erode people's trusts in video games; especially if you already paid full price.

 

I don’t care if it’s all cosmetic because they have no effect on gameplay and you can never say you ‘need’ a cosmetic item because it’s simply not true.

 

Microtransactions have exactly one purpose - to make money for the developers. If they impact the play experience, I don't buy them. If I can't play the game without them, I don't buy the game. F2P? Sure, I'll play it, but I know that it's kind of like a free demo.

If I buy a game, it has to give me the opportunity to play the entire content of the game, and enjoy the experience of the game, right out of the box/download, without buying anything else. Sure, I'll unlock things as the game progresses, but that's fine, that's part of the game. Requiring me to buy something so that the game "is more enjoyable"? Nope, and I try not to buy those games. SWBF2, thankfully, I got into late, so I avoided that hot garbage, but I will admit, it put me off. Now, when I read reviews for games, I specifically look for microtransactions, and it makes it an easy pass if I see that they do.

 

The thing is, games actually cost that much nowadays. If you want to be seen as a top contender, you're going to be pushing those HD graphics to the limits, and developing those assets is time-consuming and costly. We're not living in an era where AAA games can be pushed out the door in 6 months by a team of 10 anymore.

That old rogue spirit has been upheld by the indie devs, but by nature, they typically see nowhere near the attention nor cashflow of the big guns in the industry.

 

Then I hate to say it.. Either expect Microtransactions.. or games to go up in price. Truth of the matter is, cost of devs have gone up, and cost of games in stores have gone down. One or the other is going to have to change, or we get Microtransactions.

 

I prefer how it was in the 90s,when add-ons were mostly free or you could buy add-ons for 20 bucks that were the same size as the full game.

I also don't like how every game nowadays is so lengthy. I don't have time to play so much. But every game I'm interested in is about 90 hours.

Last game I played took me 3 months for 100 hours of game play and that's when I play a lot.

I have a backlog that goes back to PS1...

 

*Sans and Cuphead costume for Mii Gunner in Smash Bros*
I dunno. I really did need those.

Exactly.

 

Feedback loop. It's going to take a shit-ton of time and money to develop your game anyways, which forces the buy-in price at $60-80. Players are going to feel ripped-off at that price if the campaign experience only lasts a couple of hours, so the devs target 15-20 hours minimum (RPGs will be 40-60hrs), because scripting the game is nowhere as intensive as building the engine/assets in the first place.

 

I'm NOT big on games like that just give me a complete game and some DLC as a added story.

 

I'd have a bit more sympathy if the majority of 100-200m budget games weren't being made by inefficient and often very poorly managed corporations, not to mention that they painted themselves into this corner by constantly telling the casual AAA crowd that only pays attention to marketing that things like giant timewasting open worlds and games that are desperate to be hollywood movies should be the norm.

Most of the major Japanese third parties and mid-tier western companies have realized that working in that segment of the market is a bad idea and that they are better off shipping A-AA games or relatively short AAA games that'll make them a safe profit instead of gambling tons of money on titles that can wreck their business if they don't catch on with customers that are extremely fickle when it comes to playing things that don't have big brand names or huge advertising budgets.

Lets not forget that EA also just proved their own bullshit wrong with Fallen Order. Look how many AAA Star Wars games they've cancelled since they got the licence and at how much they insisted that BF2's lootboxes were necessary to pay the bills, yet as soon as they tasked a competent studio with a game of reasonable scope they delivered a decent title that sold 8 million copies with no MTX.

Most games aren't long, your just choosing to play ones that are.

 

I agree.. but that means people are going to have to get off their high horse and choose. Do they want AAA games, with Microtransactions? Do they want AAA with higher costs. Or do they have to expect less like a lot of Japanese developed games are now. You can't keep getting boarderlands.. and expect the 80s formula to effing work anymore.

I know most of the people here are stuck in the 80s, but it's really time to grow up and make some choices.