Pay to Win?

[blank]

I found the battlepacks in Bf4 to be annoying. You easily get them, they flood your soldier, and by the time you get around to opening them you have about 50 unopened packs backed up.

I'd rather pay to not get anymore.

 

XP Boost is easy too, i think i have 50x25 xp backed up.

 

 

I'd rather them fix the crappy h it detection, but seems like they wont.

 

 

If people want to pay for something they can very easily already get, let them.

 

 

 

I felt the low for EA.Dice was back when they started selling vehicle/weapon shortcuts in the bf3 days.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Microtransactions Are a Solution to a Problem That Shouldn't Exist

Editorial: More money, more problems.

by Tom Mc Shea on

May 29, 2014

How much are you willing to pay for a virtual item? For years, time was the only thing that I needed to invest once I bought a game, so the value of unlockable items was based on how many hours I was willing to kill. I spent weeks unlocking every character in Marvel vs. Capcom 2, even longer to get those last cheats in GoldenEye 007, and I never could quite earn everything that F-Zero GX had to offer. That game was hard! Some of my fondest gaming memories come from finally achieving the unachievable. However, a growing trend has turned this simple practice into one that feels exploitative. Unlockables have become a grind, and the microtransactions that now provide a shortcut to those precious objects only highlights how monetization can taint even the best things.

 

Electronic Arts has implemented microtransactions in Battlefield 4 for those who would rather shell out a couple of dollars here and there to get every item than mess with the randomness that the real system is built around. On the surface, this seems like a handy feature for those who want to enjoy Battlefield 4 but don't have the free time to get all the goodies. And I do relate to that mindset. As an adult with a full-time job, a wife, and a dog, I can no longer spend endless hours in front of my television trying to master a game's intricacies. So giving people with more money than time a leg up in their digital escapades seems downright generous. Electronic Arts is doing us a favor, right?

 

Well, not really. You see, Electronic Arts has solved a problem that it has created. Keeping unlocks behind a wall--be it one you hurdle by spending money or investing time makes no difference--is a decision that the publisher made. And if it realized that a segment of its audience had no interest in going through the hoops the developers constructed, it could have doled out said items in a way that didn't require you to spend even more money on a game you had already purchased. By increasing the rewards you earn at the end of every match, or making more weapons available from the onset, EA would have cut down on the time you needed to spend to see everything. So giving us the option to spend money to avoid a time sink doesn't seem like a happy, alternate method at all, but merely another way to nickel-and-dime its customers.

Microtransactions now provide a shortcut to those precious objects and highlight how monetization can taint even the best things.

In games where I spent hours trying to unlock everything that wasn't available from the beginning, I had to develop my skills to reach those heights. F-Zero GX required complete mastery to overcome the conniving racers who populated later tracks, GoldenEye forced me to plan in-depth strategies to shave seconds off my time, and Marvel vs. Capcom 2 urged me to learn the subtleties of every one of its 56 characters. The act of playing offered an intangible reward, one in which I grew so proficient at the challenges that it didn't even matter what waited for me on the other side. These unlockables didn't require me to grind levels for hours on end, or perform the same feats ad nauseam. Rather, unlockables were doled out based on my skill level--not my time commitment--which made the process more immediately satisfying.

 

This is a marked change from how unlockables are often handled now. For those who aren't aware, here's a brief rundown on how you earn new gear in Battlefield 4. You gain levels by completing matches, which earns you weapons and attachments. Well, kind of. You only get new weapons based on the class of gun you're using. So, being proficient with a shotgun gets you a new shotgun. Pretty logical. Only it's never that easy. If you earn, say, a sniper scope for one rifle, you can't just use it on another rifle you unlock later. No, you have to unlock every attachment for each individual weapon, which takes hours upon hours of hard dedication.

 

That doesn't sound too bad if you enjoy Battlefield 4, but there's a breaking point for everyone. How many dozens of hours are you willing to put in to not only unlock, but fully equip, a weapon you have your eye on? How many times can you stand unlocking the same laser sight and heavy barrel as you work your way up the ladder of assault rifles? Plus, you earn battle packs as well. These are what EA now lets you purchase, and they add randomness to an already overwhelming unlock structure. You never know what these packs will contain, so you spend many more hours trying to get everything.

 

Of course, EA offered a way around this months ago. They let you spend $50 on "buy-everything" DLC, which doesn't actually fix the problem. But there is a better way to handle rewards already out there. Call of Duty: Black Ops introduced a currency system known as CODPoints. As the name implies, you earn points for hearing the call, but what makes this system work is the freedom it gives to intrepid players. Instead of shuttling you down prescribed unlock trees like Battlefield, Call of Duty lets you choose the weapons and attachments that you want to use. It reduces the grinding element that has become so prevalent. By giving you full control over what you earn, you're not forced to contend with agonizing randomization, or suffer through underpowered weapons until you get the one you want. It's a great solution that empowers players without forcing them to invest countless hours to unlock what they want or cough up extra cash to circumvent the system.

How many dozens of hours are you willing to put in to not only unlock, but fully equip, a weapon you have your eye on?

And it's not like Battlefield 4 is alone in how its unlock system functions. In Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare, you can either endlessly play matches or just shell out a couple of bucks to skip over the monotony. The same is true in Forza Motorsport 5. So strong was the outrage for the microtransactions in Turn 10's racer that the developers changed how rewards are doled out so people don't feel as though they're being taken advantage of.

 

NBA 2K14 was one of my favorite games from last year, but the manner in which you build your created character reeks of exploitation. It takes so long to even earn a pair of new shoes--let alone boost your attributes--that your best options are to either pay the bounty or move on to another mode. Improving your player takes too much time to make it worthwhile for anyone but the most diehard. And when Take Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick says, "when we design our virtual currency packs, we do it in a way that will make consumers happier, not sadder that they are engaged with our games," it worries me that NBA 2K will continue its tradition of making people grind to upgrade their players instead of developing a smoother unlock system.

 

I don't want to demean the act of playing modern games with an emphasis on unlockable content. There is inherent joy in striving for excellence in all of these games, even if there weren't any bonuses bestowed upon the most dedicated. Rather, the problem is that developers design games in such a way that they demand hours upon hours of the same basic actions to see everything there is. It's such a huge time commitment that it becomes tiring moving up the ladder. The grind that goes with leveling up becomes the norm, so much so that I completely understand why someone would spend money to escape that void. This is especially true if you buy, say, Battlefield 4 after your friends have already sunk hours into it. Do you really want to play with a bunch of strangers to achieve the same rank as your buddies? Or would you rather just bypass that dance so you can have fun with the people you want to play with? It seems like an obvious decision, and one that could be avoided completely if the developers so choose.

 

There's a middle ground between the grind necessary to unlock items in many games and the money you must pay to skip that process. If the developers realize that people don't have the time or patience to unlock the things they want, then there should be a less punitive way to access that content than we currently have. I understand that companies aren't going to turn up their noses at an alternate revenue stream, but at some point, their customers must take priority over their bottom line. We love unlockables. Rewards can add lasting appeal to a game, give you something to strive for long after you've seen the ending credits roll. But companies shouldn't take advantage of our obsession with earning all of those bonus goodies. Making it an option to pay more money doesn't solve any problem; it just highlights one. Namely, that your unlock system is so much of a grind people are willing to pay money to avoid playing the game.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/microtransactions-are-a-solution-to-a-problem-that-shouldn-t-exist/1100-6419943/

[neoadorable]

All things considered, microtransactions can disappear and few of us will shed a tear. But overall, it's not that bad, I've been enjoying Forza 5 for ages, and all without an additional purchase. I don't know why i've taken on this rhyming alright, must have been all that Child of Light.

[Guest]

It really depends on the implementation. What companies have been doing lately is trying to get every penny possible from their customers. My guess is they look at them as one-time customers, more profitable to exploit them now, than to build a stable and trusting long-term relationship with them. Especially when some of their games cost 40+ EUR.

 

However, not all is bad, some devs do this stuff to be more "friendly". Hearthstone, Heroes, Team Fortress, Dota, LoL are just some of the ones with nicer implementation. One key thing that these games share is that they're all free.

[BillyJack]

I have not played Nintendo since the 64 but imagine if you could buy the bananas in Donkey Kong or coins in Mario. What fun is it if you buy your way through levels or unlocks. I don't know. Maybe Nintendo's games are like this now. I play BF4 and unlock things through game play. I really play for the game play with squads and other players so maybe paying to unlock guns or other things is not a bad idea after all.

[LaP]

I have never ever paid for any microtransaction item.

 

I fact this is one of the thing i hate of xbox live. Everytime i search for a game xpac or dlc i have to scroll thru a sea of microtransaction items. I never found any setting to hide those. I hate that.

 

I wish i could burn microtransactions with fire and send them to hell.

[trooper11]

I think the issues matters the most when you feel like there is an unfair amount of effort required to earn the things that you can buy via micro transactions.

For me, if a developer wants to sell cheat codes, then go for it. I'm not buying them, but as long as they don't design the game around forcing you into those transactions, then I'll happily play a game as I always have.

Plants Vs Zombies, for example, has not felt that way. They threw in the cheat codes later, after I was already enjoying the game. It didn't make the game feel worse, so I'm not bothered.

So basically, I think its easy to just paint every situation as the same, but its not.

[Guest]

So basically, I think its easy to just paint every situation as the same, but its not.

 

What about the dozens and dozens of cases where content had been residing in your installation, but you weren't able to access it because you didn't buy the day-1 DLC?

[trooper11]

What about the dozens and dozens of cases where content had been residing in your installation, but you weren't able to access it because you didn't buy the day-1 DLC?

 

That's different. My post did not mention that practice at all.

 

I'm not a fan of putting content on the disc that is only accessible via paid dlc.

[astropheed Veteran]

I wanted to unlock all the cheats in Goldeneye, it wasn't a 'grind', it was fun. If I have to buy something to not play your game, your game sucks.

[spenser.d]

I have not played Nintendo since the 64 but imagine if you could buy the bananas in Donkey Kong or coins in Mario. What fun is it if you buy your way through levels or unlocks. I don't know. Maybe Nintendo's games are like this now. I play BF4 and unlock things through game play. I really play for the game play with squads and other players so maybe paying to unlock guns or other things is not a bad idea after all.

If they didn't change Mario at all then how would adding transactions affect you? From a business standpoint it's smart to do it like that and I think some companies are learning that. It doesn't alienate people who just want to play and they get extra money from people who are just impatient.

[PGHammer]

If they didn't change Mario at all then how would adding transactions affect you? From a business standpoint it's smart to do it like that and I think some companies are learning that. It doesn't alienate people who just want to play and they get extra money from people who are just impatient.

Microtransactions - in all games - are due to a hatred of grinding.

 

Grinding started in MMORPGs because of leveling and keeping their subscriber bases up; however, as non-MMO titles got larger (and longer), grinding took hold there as well.  Still, grinding is HATED by most gamers - in or out of MMOs. In MMOs, there are auction houses/brokers/etc. to facilitate the microtransactions; they are also now showing up outside the MMO space (only one game - Diablo III - killed an AH that had originally been part of the core game).

 

As long as folks want to take the non-grinding way - I don't see microtransactions going anywhere.

[PGHammer]

I stopped caring about Soul Calibur when I got my hands on SC5. The series has been going downhill. As for Pay 2 Win, it's frustrating. It exists in many forms in the gaming industry and while most people classify it as the ability to flat purchase an item unavailable to others for an advantage, I see it in other forms as well. Games like battlefield where you can buy experience/unlocks from the store is one good example.

 

I think games need to draw back on the RPG mechanic fanaticism. I'm tired of having to play 300 hours to unlock the full game and to be on a fair playing field with others. What ever happened to a game where everyone was on an even playing field from the start?

 

I stopped caring about Soul Calibur when I got my hands on SC5. The series has been going downhill. As for Pay 2 Win, it's frustrating. It exists in many forms in the gaming industry and while most people classify it as the ability to flat purchase an item unavailable to others for an advantage, I see it in other forms as well. Games like battlefield where you can buy experience/unlocks from the store is one good example.

 

I think games need to draw back on the RPG mechanic fanaticism. I'm tired of having to play 300 hours to unlock the full game and to be on a fair playing field with others. What ever happened to a game where everyone was on an even playing field from the start?

The *grinding mechanic* (in MMORPGs) - AKA the leveling mechanic - is designed to reward those that play longer, tackle tougher bosses, etc.  As games themselves became longer (even those outside the MMO space - Diablo III is a perfect example), they used the same mechanic - after all, why reinvent the wheel?

 

However, by and large, most gamers - even those that play MMORPGs - HATE the grinding mechanic.  They may understand why it exists - however, it doesn't mean they like it.

 

Microtransactions are how games are implementing the anti-grind mechanic.  You don't HAVE to use them - you can keep grinding, if you choose - however, how many gamers do?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

It just occurred to me we had 3 topics all about P2W / microtransactions going at once here, so...

 

Topics merged

[neoadorable]

Many games do microtransactions well. Let's not forget while passionate and on our side, developers are still people that need to eat, and so are publishers. So if they try to make more money I can't fault them. As long as it's not messing with the concept of a game too much. The Asphalt racers on mobile do it very well, you can always progress without paying extra. Powerstar Golf which i'm playing now does it well, never gets in your face about it and doesn't force you to pay anything - says right on the tin what you get for the free version. And for all the hoopla I don't understand why people got so up in arms about Forza 5. I got it late so maybe it was different on launch, but it's not that bad. There's press Y to accelerate, and that's it. If you can't afford a car it just means you can do the bonus events or grind. If you enjoy the game then grinding should not be a problem, if you don't like the game, then fine, you're probably already 50 hours in so just put the controller down and move on.

 

Of course this does not cancel out the horrible examples out there of games that flat out lie and make it impossible to progress if you don't pay.

[Emn1ty]

Microtransactions are how games are implementing the anti-grind mechanic.  You don't HAVE to use them - you can keep grinding, if you choose - however, how many gamers do?

 

Micro-transactions are a way to circumvent the grind. My point is that is another "pay to win" wall. People either need to play for hundreds of hours, or drop $40 to bypass it and start playing against those with far more time on their hands on the same level. That's not fun.

 

Grinding, honestly, shouldn't exist in every genre and it annoys me that its infected most of them. One of the primary reasons I'm not a fan of RPG's (MMO, JRPG, etc) is the grinding mechanic. As you said it's not fun. And I don't think micro-transactions solve that problem or even fight it. They just worsen the problem cause then people who can't drop the money feel like they are being shafted.

[The Evil Overlord]

On the microtansaction side, I'm against it, just another way to bleed gamers dry... On the other hand, some games were being pushed out that felt incomplete, and the only way to complete the saga, or story was to purchase the extra dlc, to me dlc was supposed to refresh a game, not finish what was not a big game (but still expensive) to begin with.

/rant

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

i do not have a problem with micro transactions so long as it is done the way that World of Warcraft and Guild wars 2 do it. They are mostly cosmetic and have no bearing on how the game is played at all (even though Guild wars 2 you can buy gold making it easier to get crafting done.

[Mr. Gibs]

However, by and large, most gamers - even those that play MMORPGs - HATE the grinding mechanic. They may understand why it exists - however, it doesn't mean they like it.

Well let's take WoW for example. Does WoW have a grind sure, but the reason people hate it is because they are so focused on end game raiding that nothing else really matters.

There's a massive story, tons and tons of cool things to discover in WoW but most people don't care. To them it's just let me grind all these mobs till I get the level / item I need and then I'll grind that raid dungeon for 20 more weeks.

Then they end up hating the grind because they'd prefer to just be tossed in at level 90 and start raiding. But if they spent a couple of minutes looking around, they'll find that there's a ###### ton more than just kill mobs and collect bones.

[The Evil Overlord]

Well let's take WoW for example. Does WoW have a grind sure, but the reason people hate it is because they are so focused on end game raiding that nothing else really matters.

There's a massive story, tons and tons of cool things to discover in WoW but most people don't care. To them it's just let me grind all these mobs till I get the level / item I need and then I'll grind that raid dungeon for 20 more weeks.

Then they end up hating the grind because they'd prefer to just be tossed in at level 90 and start raiding. But if they spent a couple of minutes looking around, they'll find that there's a ###### ton more than just kill mobs and collect bones.

I miss the old attunement system

[Mr. Gibs]

I miss the old attunement system

Same here. That said WoD has got me really excited with WoW again.

[Emn1ty]

But if they spent a couple of minutes looking around, they'll find that there's a ###### ton more than just kill mobs and collect bones.

 

All presented in a very non-engaging, uninteresting and most of all non-persistent way. One of my biggest pet peeves about MMO's is the fact that literally nothing you do matters outside of getting experience. Perhaps that's the real core of the issue, you spend all this time in an MMO to learn all the lore... then when you want to do something different you have to start it aaaall over again. I'm not surprised MMO gamers' have devolved into the current mindset. There was nothing to stop that from happening.

 

There are some games where what you do does matter, but they are few and far between. And honestly, an even bigger pet peeve of mine with such games is that in order to do anything different, you have start over (aka play a different class). Recently this has been fixed in a couple MMO's (I know WoW lets you respec, not sure about change class entirely, and Rift allowed respec-ing within your class as well) but I find it obnoxious to force me to sit through all the BS again just to play something different.

 

While this is a tangent of microtransactions, I think that the mindset of "get to endgame" has nothing to do with people but the core of MMO's in general.

 

TLDR: People skip content in MMO's because they are obscenely repetitive.

 

The same reason there's incentive to, for example, buy away experience such as in the Battlefield games.

[trag3dy]

I stopped caring about Soul Calibur when I got my hands on SC5. The series has been going downhill. As for Pay 2 Win, it's frustrating. It exists in many forms in the gaming industry and while most people classify it as the ability to flat purchase an item unavailable to others for an advantage, I see it in other forms as well. Games like battlefield where you can buy experience/unlocks from the store is one good example.

 

I think games need to draw back on the RPG mechanic fanaticism. I'm tired of having to play 300 hours to unlock the full game and to be on a fair playing field with others. What ever happened to a game where everyone was on an even playing field from the start?

 

Battlefield is a terrible example. If you could not see a persons rank in that game you would never know if they purchased unlocks or not. It has very little affect on the gameplay.

 

That being said I mostly agree with what you're saying.

[Emn1ty]

Battlefield 3 is a perfect example, primarily because you had to earn kills in vehicles in order to be mildly competent with them. For example, in a jet you had to get 300 points in order to unlock flares. And unless you're playing with people without heat seeking missiles or SAMs... you're pretty much screwed. Not to mention you need 700 to get heat seeking rockets, and at the highest points you get ECM which makes you extremely difficult to hit.

 

So someone in a 35,000 point Jet has every advantage against someone who's just started without flares or rockets that follow their target.

 

The game was inherently difficult for new players to break into. Thus why I bring it up as an example.

[trag3dy]

Battlefield 3 is a perfect example, primarily because you had to earn kills in vehicles in order to be mildly competent with them. For example, in a jet you had to get 300 points in order to unlock flares. And unless you're playing with people without heat seeking missiles or SAMs... you're pretty much screwed. Not to mention you need 700 to get heat seeking rockets, and at the highest points you get ECM which makes you extremely difficult to hit.

 

So someone in a 35,000 point Jet has every advantage against someone who's just started without flares or rockets that follow their target.

 

The game was inherently difficult for new players to break into. Thus why I bring it up as an example.

 

Yes but the point still stands. If you could not see their rank you would not know if they bought unlocks or not. I've put many hours into BF3 and never once did I think I died because the other guy bought his upgrades.

 

Besides that there are some perfectly valid reasons why some might consider buying unlocks to be a good thing. For example if you play the game on multiple systems and don't want to go through the hassle of unlocking everything 2 or even 3 times. And yes I know people who own and played the game on 3 different systems.

 

Here's another thing. If you are playing on public servers you will be facing people from rank 1 all the way up to max rank. Why does it matter if some one bought their unlocks when there are 15 more guys on the same server who did it legit? Does it make any difference if you die to the 15 who did it legit or the one who bought his unlocks? I certainly don't think so. At most, for BF3 it's pay for convenience.

 

In a game like BF3 I think buying unlocks has a place. But in other games like mmos or competitive fighting games, definitely not.