34 Replies Latest reply: Jul 27, 2013 10:05 PM by xDBL28x RSS

Are Micro-transactions dangerous?

Dan313theman

I would like to speak to you all and share my concern.  I would also like to hear your thoughts for and/or against.

 

I had another thread which had over 1300 views about this which was removed due to organizing a boycott.  I guess Activision got scared and removed my thread.  I will be seeking another venue to enforce the boycott.

 

Let me be clear.  This thread IS NOT for the boycott.  I believe awareness has to be spread about the dangers of micro-transactions and how the impact will affect all of us.

 

Micro-transactions in Black Ops 2 for the most part are cosmetic.  Except for extra classes and the Peacekeeper (given to us for buying the map packs) which give the user an unfair advantage in multiplayer.

 

By supporting these micro-transactions, I believe you are giving companies like Activision permission to nickle and dime us.  I also fear that if they think this is "good business", what is to stop them from selling us guns, equipment, or even gun attachments to give the buyers an unfair advantage?  How would that affect the rest of us who do not want to buy micro-tranactions to stay competitive?

 

EA is another company who sells micro-tranactions and for anyone who plays Battlefield knows you get a lot of perks for buying premium and gives users an unfair advantage over the competition.

 

In my opinion, micro-tranactions only belong in free-to-play games.  We spent $60 for a game which should include the WHOLE game, not just 75% or 85% of the game.

 

So what are your thoughts?

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    MysteriousDeeds

    I don't think they are danngerous. They are not a mandatory part of the game and thus you do ultimately have the option of not purchasing/downloading them.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    Thembones

    Well seeing how successful this was you can tell Cod Ghost will have them too. The moment I heard you can customize your solders Helm, Vest. All I can think was Ding more microtransaction. And yes people will pay $1.99 to have a skull helm if they already paid that for gun camo.

     

    Btw buying Premium does not give unfair advantages. The DLC guns  are almost in Par with the the default guns. You just unlocked them earlier. But the challanges are not easy too.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    eleven1181

    i think your spot on agree with everything u said good post

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    EGGonPlay

    I think you are right. Its a way of nickle and dimeing us. In versions past in COD, we would get country flags to show off our pride. Now we must pay for them. They say " here are 4 new DLC maps for you guys to enjoy" But really its three new maps and a refurbished map. Firing Range is now Studio, Summit is now Uplink. Its very clear that they are trying to rip us off with a smile. Im pissed cause I love this game and want more, more, more. So i buy the DLC... i know its people like me that they count on to buy these micro transactions. I cant help it, i want it all with these games. I want the new maps, i want the new camo's. It sucks that they are doing this bullcrap. Im thinking hard about not buying anymore games from Treyarch, may have to skip them. Which sux cause I have every cod game and would like to continue to collect them. But i may have to stop my collection.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    Dr_QuiCKScOP3r

    I'm all for a f2p COD similar to the model they use in COD online in China. I would not mind paying for my gun, its attachments and perks. I do believe and I do hope they will move on to this model soon.

     

    You want Scavenger? That's $2 and it's $4 for the Pro version.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    Izjar11

    Dan313theman wrote:

     

    Micro-transactions in Black Ops 2 for the most part are cosmetic.

    you and I had our differance's earlier and setting those aside let me share what I think about MTs.

     

    - they currently are harmless (even the extra Slot options)

    - they are in almost every video game now (take candy crush for example!) They charge crazy amount of monies to unlock things.

     

    Now, I personally do not have an issue with the cosmetic part of them since they cost near nothing (to me) whats 1.99? But overall I as well am not please that the gaming industry is moving in this direction of selling more content that could have been potentially free if they wanted. These companies are not bleeding money, they make money and they make more with these transactions. So essentially I am not very happy with them, they are optional and un concerning due to their cosmetic nature.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    gambit1969

    As long as they stay as cosmetic items i have no problem with them, they do not effect my gaming in any way (but some of the camos are enough to make you want to vomit they are so ugly).

     

    But i do draw the line at game enhancements, if they start that i will walk away from this franchise and never look back..

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    Noobtubes_Claymores

    People need to understand a few things.

     

    1. Microtransactions are the future. You can thank the MP DLC that we've purchased since COD2 and the plethora of games that have offered DLC. At the end of the day, microtransactions are simply DLC. As a final note, the mobile and PC markets are heavily to blame for this kind of "micro" content.
    2. If you disagree with any of it and you've purchased it, then you're already part of the problem. The only way to reverse your position is to no longer purchase that content or be extrmely selective. Good luck doing that.
    3. There are different kinds of microtransactions and it varies entirely on what you're playing.

     

    Traditional Model: This is what we're in right now. Most, if not all, microtransactions in a multiplayer versus/arena environment are cosmetic or expansion elements. The majority of content exists on purchase of the game. Pricing ranges.

     

    Free to Play Model (F2P): Cosmetic, expansion and utility elements are the driving force and source of revenue for this model. A great example is League of Legends. You don't have to pay a dime if you do not want, but you can acquire more content quickly by exchanging your money for their points. You then purchase content with those points. This doesn't affect the game's meta-game in a big way. All in-game items remain the same save for cosmetic content. Pricing ranges.

     

    Pay to Win Model (P2W): This is very similar to the F2P model, but on top of all of the content that can be purchased within F2P are advancement, resource, and power elements. Examples of this game are Dust 514, World of Tanks and, unfortunately, Battlefield (F2P + TM). In these games you can bypass any grinding to unlock content and get a huge advantage over any player. This is what people fear when they think of microtransactions, but these games don't have the kind of footprint that triple A titles do. Pricing is very low to entice purchases of premium items and credits.

     

    All of these blur the lines at times, but for the most part we're in a very good position in the console/retail market.

     

    My opinions.

     

    • The CaC utility was great. I picked it up, but it's impact as an advantage has a very small footprint. To be worried that this will lead into purchasable items is a bit of a stretch.
    • The Peacekeer was packaged DLC. It doesn't fit the P2W model, but I can see where people would draw lines to it. I don't think this will lead to purchaseable items either.
    • Cosmetic items are fine. Hopefully they're here to stay. Note: If you don't like them, then don't buy them.

     

    PS: You're not so smart for attempting to create a boycott on official forums. That kind of content never works and never gets allowed to exist.

    • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
      Izjar11

      Really good post, thanks for sharing this insight.

    • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
      Yppecaye_the_Dogged

      Noobtubes_Claymores wrote:

       

      Traditional Model:

      Free to Play Model (F2P):

      Pay to Win Model (P2W):

      Good info. 

       

      I first became concerned with this OP issue after I downloaded Dusk (BTW:  its site says you don't have to buy anything to stay competitive [Removed by Moderator], uh huh.).  I managed to get into the game and was just destroyed every turn.  No big deal.  Afterall, I'm new to the game and know there's always a learning curve. 

       

      To be good at any game (not only FPS) one must be intimately familiar with all game aspects such as weapons, armor, etc.  So, I thought before I get my ass handed to me again, I would familiarize myself with what's there in the game. 

       

      I shouldn't have been surprised, buty everything in the game had a price.  Obviously, then, I said to hell with this and couldn't delete the game fast enough from my PS3. 

       

      This is also around the time when BOII offered the first set of camo and CaC. 

       

      Now, would CoD ever go that far?  Probably not.  But how far is too far.

      ...but for the most part we're in a very good position in the console/retail market.

      What does this mean.  Who's "we."  And good position in what, relative to what. 

      My opinions.

       

      • The CaC utility...To be worried that this will lead into purchasable items is a bit of a stretch.
      • The Peacekeer...I don't think this will lead to purchaseable items either.

      How can it be a stretch, at this point, when you yourself just gave three examples that it already has been done. 

       

      Certainly you're entitled to your opinion.  But you provide no  evidence.  In fact, you just said "Microtransctions are the future." 

      • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
        Noobtubes_Claymores

        Yppecaye_the_Dogged wrote:

         

        Noobtubes_Claymores wrote:

         

        Traditional Model:

        Free to Play Model (F2P):

        Pay to Win Model (P2W):

        Good info. 

         

        I first became concerned with this OP issue after I downloaded Dusk (BTW:  its site says you don't have to buy anything to stay competitive [Removed by Moderator], uh huh.).  I managed to get into the game and was just destroyed every turn.  No big deal.  Afterall, I'm new to the game and know there's always a learning curve. 

         

        To be good at any game (not only FPS) one must be intimately familiar with all game aspects such as weapons, armor, etc.  So, I thought before I get my ass handed to me again, I would familiarize myself with what's there in the game. 

         

        I shouldn't have been surprised, buty everything in the game had a price.  Obviously, then, I said to hell with this and couldn't delete the game fast enough from my PS3. 

         

        This is also around the time when BOII offered the first set of camo and CaC. 

         

        Now, would CoD ever go that far?  Probably not.  But how far is too far.

        ...but for the most part we're in a very good position in the console/retail market.

        What does this mean.  Who's "we."  And good position in what, relative to what. 

        My opinions.

         

        • The CaC utility...To be worried that this will lead into purchasable items is a bit of a stretch.
        • The Peacekeer...I don't think this will lead to purchaseable items either.

        How can it be a stretch, at this point, when you yourself just gave three examples that it already has been done. 

         

        Certainly you're entitled to your opinion.  But you provide no  evidence.  In fact, you just said "Microtransctions are the future." 

        I covered "good position" here.

        Be happy that you have choice. We very well couldn't, but for as much as previous and current consumers have allowed the state of things, they've done a good job of preventing that reality. Example: P2W FPS games have a very small footprint.

        In reference to the fear that most titles would become P2W. Those titles that are P2W have slowly fallen, are falling, and are very unpopular with the crowd. "We" are gamers as a whole and also including those who vehemently despise that content.

         

        It's a stretch because while it's a possibility, the amount of opposition for P2W elements exists within the market is large enough for it not to enter mainstream FPS titles. If it does, then count me in as one of those who would be against it within the traditional retail model.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    ghamorra

    Give me microtransaction and give everyone DLC for free. DLC is the most toxic store item as it segregates the community 16ish ways when all is said and done. That decimates quality matchmaking.

     

    Players enjoy having those little things that make their gaming expereince better, like extra CaC and rectiles. But I'm finding players aren't happy with how DLC works.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    theroc23

    You will eventually get nickeled and dimmed anyway, it's business 101 for the future. 

    • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
      Izjar11

      theroc23 wrote:

       

      You will eventually get nickeled and dimmed anyway, it's business 101 for the future. 

      Right, video games use to be priced around 14 to 15 (US dollars) to 24.99 and than boom 59.99! So we all have been paying more for these software's anyway's.

    • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
      Noobtubes_Claymores

      theroc23 wrote:

       

      You will eventually get nickeled and dimmed anyway, it's business 101 for the future. 

      This is true. Why give away something for free when you can make money off of it? Too many gamers think that this should be a charity event. It's not. We're in a luxury hobby that requires capital. Sure you don't need a lot of money to sustain yourself, but to not realize, expect and understand that this will happen is a lack of reality held by the end-user.

       

      Be happy that you have choice. We very well couldn't, but for as much as previous and current consumers have allowed the state of things, they've done a good job of preventing that reality. Example: P2W FPS games have a very small footprint.

      • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
        Yppecaye_the_Dogged

        Noobtubes_Claymores wrote:

         

        Too many gamers think that this should be a charity event.

        Paying $120 for a single game is thinking it should be a charity?

         

        Be happy that you have choice.

        No.  I will criticize and scrutinize every profiteering move any company tries to make. 

        • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
          Noobtubes_Claymores

          Yppecaye_the_Dogged wrote:

           

          Noobtubes_Claymores wrote:

           

          Too many gamers think that this should be a charity event.

          Paying $120 for a single game is thinking it should be a charity?

           

          Be happy that you have choice.

          No.  I will criticize and scrutinize every profiteering move any company tries to make. 

          Expecting all secondary provided content to be free is what I mean by chairty.

           

          You miss what I was saying. Be happy that you have the choice to purchase content or not. There could be paywalls that prevent certain play beyond what logically should exist. The previous and current gaming community has done well to not allow gaming companies to become too greedy and limit our abilities.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    Yppecaye_the_Dogged

    Dan313theman wrote:

     

    In my opinion, micro-tranactions only belong in free-to-play games.  We spent $60 for a game which should include the WHOLE game, not just 75% or 85% of the game.

    Some of us spent $120.  And like you said, we expect the game to be fully self-sustaining and self-sufficient without having to pay 1 cent more.

     

    If they are truly concerned about the aesthetic side of things, I might take it as their charitable gesture of customer appreciation.   

    • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
      Dan313theman

      Actually I was talking about the base game, without map packs.  If you include map packs, then yeah, the game costs $120.  But if you ask me, those maps should be part of the game too.  I'm not seeing each map pack being worth $15 now not since the first map pack especially if they keep copying BO1 maps.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    Eye_Gore

    This game franchise is Activisions cash cow. It took a mere 15 days to earn $1 billion, yes thats billion with a "B". How many products out there can say that when they launch to market?

     

    As long as people keep buying it, they will find more ways to make even more money off it. Its nothing personal just business. Again though, no one is forced to buy it, or anything else for it after launch. You, we, keep feeding the cow, and it will keep on eating, and make more cows to feed in the future.

     

    What business out there is not in the business to make money? What is enough? There is no amount thats enough, more is always better for them. Stockholders stay happy, and the old timers get their retirement, all thanks to us.

     

    But they provide a service, and that service cost's money. They put out more services for people to buy and use, thats up to you to decide if you want to pay more, and no one else. Like it or leave it, thats your choice.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    cranium2001

    Map packs? I'm in. Extra camos? I'm out. The amount of time I put in this game I'm not too worried about what I pay. I'd be out drinking and spending more $ if I didn't spend a few bucks on this.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    CupcakeBandit

    I'm not against microtransaction but when a developer decides to hold back on guns, maps, skins, and other when it should of been in the original game then I get upset. There should NEVER be a DLC map as an incentive to preorder. If the map has already been made then it should automatically be available to EVERYONE. Most of the microtransaction I find useless and not having them does not interfere with my gaming. It actually benefit me because lately I've been having an easier time spotting players with the cyborg camo. they are like a glowing target. lol

    • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
      Noobtubes_Claymores

      CupcakeBandit wrote:

       

      I'm not against microtransaction but when a developer decides to hold back on guns, maps, skins, and other when it should of been in the original game then I get upset. There should NEVER be a DLC map as an incentive to preorder. If the map has already been made then it should automatically be available to EVERYONE. Most of the microtransaction I find useless and not having them does not interfere with my gaming. It actually benefit me because lately I've been having an easier time spotting players with the cyborg camo. they are like a glowing target. lol

      Call of Duty with their last pre-order DLC incentive did it right.

       

      • All launch copies in select regions included the DLC.
      • All pre-ordered copies (guaranteed launch copies) included the DLC.
      • The pre-order DLC didn't cost any additional amount of
      • It was made free in time.

       

      If you're a fan and you know that you're going to play Call of Duty, then there's no real loss.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    mrtmb55

    I don't care about the camos. If someone wants to waste their money on them thats fine with me, but if they start to add guns or perks that you must buy it'll be the last title I'll own.

  • Re: Are Micro-transactions dangerous?
    xDBL28x

    I've read only the OP, I apologize if my post echos what somoene else already posted in advance.

     

    The microtransactions are not dangerous in my opinion, and although I see where your coming from, I think youre missing a few things, mainly when it comes to the peacekeeper and extra custom class slots.

     

    The Peacekeeper was part of the DLC. In a perfect world 3arc is hoping that the DLC and non-DLC players were perfectly split, meaning that someone who had the DLC (and the peackeeper) would never be in the same lobby as someone who didn't have the DLC, thus giving them no advantage. Obvioulsy this doesn't happen, however I don't think the peackeeper gives any kind of amazing advantage. Its a decent gun, don't get me wrong, but its not extremely powerful or amazing. Its simply the M27 with increased mobility.

     

    The extra custom class slots give no advantage. You can only use 10 of them in game. You cant choose from all 100, once the game starts you are locked into choosing your class from one of the 10 of the current set you selected. Freinds of mine who purchased the extra class have simply used them to set up game mode specific class sets. So they have a set for Dom, set for KC, Set for TDM etc. Again you can only pick from one class set during a game, so again thats not an advantage, but rather it just saves time from constantly messing with classes in a pregame lobby.

     

    By purchasing the microtransactions you are saying it is okay for Activision to nickel and dime you when it comes to meaningless aesthetics. You are telling them you are willing to pay to make your gun or calling card look cooler. That is it. I see no danger in microtransactions. Thats just my opinion though