# [PPOTW] Do you like micro transactions?



## T-hug (Dec 15, 2013)

Recently GT6 came out and was filled with micro transactions along with Forza 5 that contains over $2000 worth of micro transactions.
How do you feel about this? Do micro transactions have any place in a £50/$60 full retail game? Should they only exist in a F2P model?
Do you like them as they save you time?
Let us know in the comments!



Spoiler: Previous Polls



Previous Week - What did you think of this years VGX Awards?
Week 23 - Which of the nextgen consoles do you own?
Week 22 - Do you think the Xbox One launch was good?
Week 21 - Do you think the PS4 launch was good?
Week 20 - Is Microsoft right to ban early Xbone players?
Week 19 - What is the best video game genre?
Week 18 - Is Vita TV a good idea?
Week 17 - Have you got Pokemon X or Y? 
Week 16 - Do you keep trade or sell your games?
Week 15 - Are you interested in Valve's new Vision for Steam 
Week 14 - Do you think GTAV is the game of the generation?
 Week 13 - Have you ever backed a Kickstarter project?
 Week 12 - Will you be buying a 2DS? 
 Week 11 - After last weeks Gamescom are you more or less interested in the PS Vita? 
 Week 10 - Are you looking forward to Gamescom this week? 
Week 9 - Which company has the best online infrastructure? 
 Week 8 - Which is better android or ios? 
Week 7 - Which August game release are you most looking forward to? 
 Week 6 - Will you be buying GTA V?
 Week 5 - Will you buy a Gateway 3DS Flashcard?
 Week 4 - Which system has the best controller? 
 Week 3 - Have you preordered a nextgen console yet? 
 Week 2 - Now MS has backtracked, will you? 
Week 1 - Who will sell the most hardware next gen? 


 
If you have an idea for a poll you would like to see on the portal just send me a PM with PPOTW in the title and your questions and answers for the poll.


----------



## Gabbynaruto (Dec 15, 2013)

Personally, I'm fine only with micro-transactions for aesthetic customization in a f2p game. But, for a full price game, give me the whole product, dammit. I didn't pay or a demo.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 15, 2013)

I don't mind actual DLC, but I don't consider micro-transactions DLC.

DLC = maps, quests, worlds, stories.
microtransactions = clothes. hats. wheels. guns.

Microtransactions need to piss off. Every developer who uses them can go die.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

Though I can not say I would ever commend a developer for using them, not least of all because it removes the customise your character functionality present for years in things similar to pay to complete DLC and cheats and trophments all fighting it out, I can happily ignore their presence. Equally though I would probably consider it taking the piss I am OK with seeing them in "full price" games as well.

Now the chances of me ever paying for such a thing.... not likely.

Oh and just to round it out I am OK with on disc DLC.



ShadowSoldier said:


> DLC = maps, quests, worlds, stories.
> microtransactions = [snip] guns.



I have played several games where new weapons would radically change how the game works. Often far more than a few extra sidequests ever would. Granted I figured you were probably speaking about the Ubisoft model where it is mostly same thing in a slightly different skin rather than what I imagine the Team Fortress 2 thing plays out as or as it might play out in Ninja Gaiden or Japanese games in general.


----------



## Satangel (Dec 15, 2013)

Should only exist in F2P models, no where else. Especially in full fledged games that cost 50/60 USD, that's just a disgrace if there are still microtransactions in there.


----------



## anhminh (Dec 15, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I don't mind actual DLC, but I don't consider micro-transactions DLC.
> 
> DLC = maps, quests, worlds, stories.
> microtransactions = clothes. hats. wheels. guns.
> ...


 
Uh, I hate this thing.
This is why I hate MMO game too. Most of their update are new clothes and accessory, none of those thing actually affect the game except it make you stat higher and you look cool.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

anhminh said:


> Uh, I hate this thing.
> This is why I hate MMO game too. Most of their update are new clothes and accessory, none of those thing actually affect the game except it make you stat higher and you look cool.



Now there are many reasons to dislike what get called MMOs but if it makes you stat higher does that not actually change the game? Higher level caps, higher stats or more easily to get stats at certain levels changes things quite a bit.

If you meant the pay to win thing where you can only play effectively should you buy the items then carry on.


----------



## Joe88 (Dec 15, 2013)

nobody else loves day one on disc dlc?

I'm generally fine with most micro transactions, as long as you can still attain said item without spending real world money (by grinding ect...)
then there is "pay 2 win", that aspect needs to be gotten rid of


----------



## Arras (Dec 15, 2013)

If A. getting said item without microtransactions is possible AND B. does not require grinding for the sake of grinding I'm fine with it. For F2P games I'm fine with microtransactions as long as it doesn't become pay2win. They're not "the bane of gaming" or anything like that though.


----------



## Smuff (Dec 15, 2013)

Just another tactic to squeeze every last penny out of consumers. I hate them.


----------



## stae1234 (Dec 15, 2013)

I'm okay when it's to unlock something much quicker.
But if its something that is ONLY unlockable by paying for it and the game is nearly impossible to get through without paying for it,  the game becomes instant turnoff.

Looking at you Gamevil, EA.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

stae1234 said:


> I'm okay when it's to unlock something much quicker.



In single player or online?

If single player then we used to have that sort of thing as normal cheats. If online then carry on, unless it is an absolutely ridiculous amount of time in which case I might have problems unless there are quests/contents and the like.


----------



## CrimzonEyed (Dec 15, 2013)

If you paid for a game there should not be a single micro transaction in the game what so ever. You already bought the game why the hell add micro transactions. On free to play games I don't mind it at all as long as it doesn't becomes pay to win/have fun.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 15, 2013)

Micro transactions are just another way to make people think they are paying less for a game than they really are. So far all of the games with micro transactions have been filled with them and all of the micro transactions add up pretty quickly. 
Now I can see on free MMO's like buying from cash shops. But on offline games where you paid the full price for the game already, it's just another way to get more money out of the customer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 15, 2013)

I don't mind microtransactions as long as the content is not necessary for completing the game. _"Pay to Win"_ scenarios are not to my liking, but the occasional cool skin is nice and welcome. As long as the microtransactions system doesn't give players who are willing to pay an unreasonable advantage against those who play the stock version, it's okay.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 15, 2013)

I think I only accountered micro transaction in FTP. I think I'm going to treat them like I treat DLC. As long as they don't take away from the game or need them to progress through the game, I didn't see the problem.


----------



## EyeZ (Dec 15, 2013)

I have previously made some micro transactions, not many, just the the occasional, can't say i'm a fan of them but if i'm really enjoying a game then i can be enticed.


----------



## Enchilada (Dec 15, 2013)

I hate micro-transaction, especially the ones from the mobile games.


----------



## Mario92 (Dec 15, 2013)

I wouldn't mind if they were actually micro and cosmetic only - but they aren't. We are talking about several euros for something to be done within game instead of waiting whole IRL day and something that is needed to make game playable! 

Only company I can trust with microtransactions is Valve. TF2 is literally only hats and everything else can be aquired any other way or just simply playing normally and every weapon is as good as other one. If you want to go wild grate key is under couple euros and there can be almost anything! If it sucks you can transform it to metal and trade it for another key!


----------



## omgpwn666 (Dec 15, 2013)

Sometimes, depending on the content. I would never buy horse armor, but if they used DLC to add more accessible Pokemon in the wild for Pokemon X and Y I would probably buy, depending on the price. <--- That's just an example.


----------



## WhiteMaze (Dec 15, 2013)

This is what happens when gaming developers begin getting super famous, due to their last successful releases (Forza / Gran Turismo).

To me, and to a lot of other people, you shouldn't do this. This is clearly a way to squeeze more money. You can say whatever you wan't: It's a way to get more of your wallet, period.

You have to freaking choose one: Either F2P with micro transactions *OR* full retail price.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Dec 15, 2013)

FF XIV=Buy Game+Pay for playing+Buy Stuff in Premium Shop

............................ ._.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

omgpwn666 said:


> Sometimes, depending on the content. I would never buy horse armor, but if they used DLC to add more accessible Pokemon in the wild for Pokemon X and Y I would probably buy, depending on the price. <--- That's just an example.



Horse armour at least could allow for a new style of play (kind of hard to play a plate armoured knight if your horse can not handle it). The pokemon thing would involve twiddling a probability knob.



Mario92 said:


> I wouldn't mind if they were actually micro and cosmetic only - but they aren't. *We are talking about several euros for something to be done within game instead of waiting whole IRL day and something that is needed to make game playable! *
> 
> Only company I can trust with microtransactions is Valve. TF2 is literally only hats and everything else can be aquired any other way or just simply playing normally and every weapon is as good as other one. If you want to go wild grate key is under couple euros and there can be almost anything! If it sucks you can transform it to metal and trade it for another key!



Regarding the bolded part. Interesting you frame it like that. In previous conversations on the matter I have seen that many of those that are a bit unsure about this style of monetisation often seem to be quite happy with the wait or pay approach, especially when it is something as easy as waiting a day rather than putting in 200 hours of solid clicking to continue.

On the Valve thing I probably should look at that more. I quite like seeing the weird (often deeply flawed) economic systems that arise in such games though.


----------



## porkiewpyne (Dec 15, 2013)

Don't want it in full-priced games.

I don't mind it in f2p if there is a way to obtain it without spending money. Or if it is purely for aesthetics only like costumes.


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 15, 2013)

As long as those micro transactions won't impact the gameplay/enhance gameplay in any way that it would benefit over the vanilla game then it's fine.
Weapon skins, clothes, hats, character customizations, car skins etc is fine.
But upgrades to boost stats, no sir. 

DLC....
I'm kinda against it.
Some devs just push out DLC as an excuse to sell an unfinished game.
DLC should basically be standing apart from the actual storyline.
But then again, DLC isn't a micro transaction tho.


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 15, 2013)

Micro-transactions are basically chopping off bits of the game to sell at an extra cost, or making getting something extremely difficult but not impossible to try and coax you into just instead spending MORE money to get it.

Microtransactions are a plague, and while sometimes they're fine, in almost every instance, they're just used for money grubbing and games suffer because of it.


----------



## Arras (Dec 15, 2013)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> FF XIV=Buy Game+Pay for playing+Buy Stuff in Premium Shop
> 
> ............................ ._.


World of Warcraft is like that as well, but with a full-priced expansion pack every year or so on top of it


----------



## Mario92 (Dec 15, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Regarding the bolded part. Interesting you frame it like that. In previous conversations on the matter I have seen that many of those that are a bit unsure about this style of monetisation often seem to be quite happy with the wait or pay approach, especially when it is something as easy as waiting a day rather than putting in 200 hours of solid clicking to continue.
> 
> On the Valve thing I probably should look at that more. I quite like seeing the weird (often deeply flawed) economic systems that arise in such games though.


 
For some people that style suits and it's from earliest facebook games. You just simply play same game at same time everyday so game continues and rewards you for it. However if you want to just continue the game right then and there you'll have to pay for it (or some games wants your friends to play so you can continue). This makes the game more of an platform where it gives you treats for remembering it instead of actually playing it.

I personally couldn't hate that more as I have irregular work schedule. I just want to play the game but because some games uses this IRL time thing and there aren't way to fully buy the game they simply get deleted from my devices.
Of course there aren't that many ways to monetize single player games as cosmetics aren't that interesting in them so I understand they have to do something but I would rather pay 5€ for full game without those waiting things instead of paying 50snt every time I want to play. Of course some people who want to play the game pays that 50snt so they won't make option to buy whole game....

Other thing is selling cheats like I said. That's usually fine but sometimes game is impossible hard and then it starts flashing all kind of icons which takes you to page to buy "superpowers" or something similar for couple euros to get trough part of game and most annoyingly tracks same scores with and without cheats! It's then about making game impossible without those cheats and then treating you from using cheats. Usually games had these things in cheat codes and they warn you that you can't be on top lists and so forth. Best part is that those are usually also on kid friendly games and are marketed being awesome most notable examples are Angry Birds with mighty eagle and Cut the rope with mascot masked as superhero.

This all reminded me of good "free-to-play" model which Capcom and Level-5 uses on mobile and Telltale with every platform: pay-as-you-go. You can basically try game out and buy it in parts or whole deal instantly like real game. Works with single player titles perfectly and is fair for everybody. Problem with Telltale is that they sell episodes before they are out but that's pretty minor complain. I bought Mystery Room on Android fully and Phoenix Wright and Ghost Trick on iOS uses same system. This also gives trust to players as you already know how game is so you can then make better decision do you want rest of it!

Other good F2P model is letting users rent things for period of time if they aren't sure do they want it, like in Blacklight: Retribution. I played that game some time and it's actually awesome. Played few rounds and had enough in-game currency to rent weapon for day. If I wanted to keep that I could buy it for real money or just rent it again later with same amount of in-game currency. Of course game has option to build weapon from ground which can't be rented so I just hoped they would simply make game more cosmetic...


----------



## trumpet-205 (Dec 15, 2013)

Microtransaction is fine, as long as it is strictly for aesthetic or DLC.


----------



## TyBlood13 (Dec 15, 2013)

Micro-transactions really don't have a time and a place, IMO, and it certainly isn't anywhere near F2P games. "Pay to Win" annoys the shit out of me.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> As long as those micro transactions won't impact the gameplay/enhance gameplay in any way that it would benefit over the vanilla game then it's fine.
> Weapon skins, clothes, hats, character customizations, car skins etc is fine.
> But upgrades to boost stats, no sir.
> 
> ...


What about those pay only weapons that should be just as effective as the ones available to free players (half the damage per hit but twice the fire rate or something)?

Interesting thoughts on DLC. First for this I will be calling DLC functionally no different from the expansion packs that have existed for ages. Similarly I am slowly becoming a bigger and bigger proponent of the idea of rolling releases for games.



Mario92 said:


> For some people that style suits and it's from earliest facebook games. You just simply play same game at same time everyday so game continues and rewards you for it. However if you want to just continue the game right then and there you'll have to pay for it (or some games wants your friends to play so you can continue). This makes the game more of an platform where it gives you treats for remembering it instead of actually playing it.
> 
> I personally couldn't hate that more as I have irregular work schedule. I just want to play the game but because some games uses this IRL time thing and there aren't way to fully buy the game they simply get deleted from my devices.
> Of course there aren't that many ways to monetize single player games as cosmetics aren't that interesting in them so I understand they have to do something but I would rather pay 5€ for full game without those waiting things instead of paying 50snt every time I want to play. Of course some people who want to play the game pays that 50snt so they won't make option to buy whole game....
> ...



That sounds more like it is not so suited for you rather than outright problems. In some ways it might be similar to those among us that are unfortunate enough to lumped with kids and a job that no longer have 40 hours to sit down and plough through a big old 40 hour epic quest type game. The only times I have encountered it though it has been "come back in 24 hours or more" and not "come back in exactly 24 hours" so that does not seem such a problem to sign in at 7am the next day or 8pm at night (37 hours later). Of course I have not really done any facebook stuff and I have not encountered (I know it exists, just I have not seen it personally) it in Flash games.

On the bold thing that usually gets termed pay to win and is not the same as microtransactions (even if they use the same methods).

Telltale selling things before they are out... isn't that otherwise known as a preorder?

I have heard good things about Blacklight as well. The cynic in my wonders if that sort of thing is more of a way to ensure a reasonable player base but in reality everything could or at least should (looking at you DOTA/MOBA) do things to try to ensure such a thing.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 15, 2013)

Other: I don't have a clue what a "micro transaction" actually is. By itself, I would have gone for Shadowsoldier's definition...



ShadowSoldier said:


> I don't mind actual DLC, but I don't consider micro-transactions DLC.
> 
> DLC = maps, quests, worlds, stories.
> microtransactions = clothes. hats. wheels. guns.


 
...in other words: micro transaction=mere cosmetic changes. But going by other replies, it's like it is supposed to be "everything that you pay in addition to the game itself". 


So without a clear knowledge of what I'm actually supposed to be liking or not liking, I can only answer "mu".

Mu is something like "the question is wrong". In other words: I honestly can't answer it without a clear definition of what is and what isn't a micro-transaction*.


Going by the 'mere cosmetic changes' definition, I'm going with "I couldn't care less".





*according to an online dictionary, it is supposed to be "anything that has to be paid a small fee to access". While that does clear SOME things up, it's easy to play devil's advocate and call red alert 3: uprising a micro transaction, as I bought it in a humble bundle.


----------



## Mario92 (Dec 15, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> That sounds more like it is not so suited for you rather than outright problems. In some ways it might be similar to those among us that are unfortunate enough to lumped with kids and a job that no longer have 40 hours to sit down and plough through a big old 40 hour epic quest type game. The only times I have encountered it though it has been "come back in 24 hours or more" and not "come back in exactly 24 hours" so that does not seem such a problem to sign in at 7am the next day or 8pm at night (37 hours later). Of course I have not really done any facebook stuff and I have not encountered (I know it exists, just I have not seen it personally) it in Flash games.
> 
> On the bold thing that usually gets termed pay to win and is not the same as microtransactions (even if they use the same methods).
> 
> ...


 
Yeah they are usually 24h and over but some games do these daily things where if you log in between 24-48h you get daily rewards which get better every sequential (is that the right word...) day. Some games have events which lasts for X amount of time before dissapearing forever and they are usually calculated on 24h cycle. This is when the game becomes the platform which suits only some people and begins to be problem as some people are left out without help of an wallet and that what I was referring to. You can play without those things as usually what they give you are also available trough wallet.
When the game is platform then it actually takes away more of your time than "actual" game would only in smaller pieces and trying to hook you somehow. These time cycles are just the way to take away the obious grinding.

Pay-to-win and Pay-to-skip are unofficial terms for how games microtransactions are actually balances. Games themselves still have those microtransactions as microtransactions are the thing that makes game pay-to-win! At least this is how I have acknowledged it :|
Every term these days seem to merge one another. DLC can mean everything from full expansion to cosmetic packs, Beta can mean real beta or beta as people get to play game bit earlier but it's actually pretty much ready. Latest thing is Borderlands 2 getting more DLC after just releasing GOTY which has usually meant that it's full game with everything in it. Some games are selling these microtransactions in DLC bundle actually so... 

What we can say is that DLC is something you buy and can always install again with game where microtransaction is paid in-game 

Telltale thing may as be preorder but when game is fully out the pricing model is still intact and you can buy any episode you want or full thing.

I actually haven't played Dota/LoL at all. What I have read is that Dota 2 seems to be fully cosmetic at least which confirms what I said in first post: Valve is only company I can trust with microtransactions.
I forgot to mention that you can actually collect cards from games you own (I have over 100 games that supports them), sell them and then buy in-game things with the money. Every time cards are sold the game dev and valve gets share.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> Other: I don't have a clue what a "micro transaction" actually is. By itself, I would have gone for Shadowsoldier's definition...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Granted it is not as bad as MMO or casual gaming but yeah the definition can be a bit fluid.

The method has technically been around for years, longer if you consider most fruit/slot machines are almost exactly this (you might get money out of a fruit machine). It rose to prominence in recent years as many facebook, flash, mobile phone and web based games used the model, I even saw it on a 3ds game the other day in Bravely Default and there were a few "full" games that use it. Free to play games (be they simple flash things or full 3d) make extensive use of this sort of thing.

Generally it was noted that being paid for your games was nice for developers and adverts do not cut it in a lot of things. How they implement it varies quite a bit.

Some games use purely cosmetic things.

Some games use it to allow variation in play styles. Going back to an earlier example if say damage per second was a thing then if you halfed the damage but doubled the fire rate you have basically the same gun but it might allow for a slightly different play style.

Some games use it to allow you to select another character. You have 10 character types to choose from but if you are going random play then you can have a user pay to play as another character type.

Some games use it to buy collectible cards of a sort.

Some games use it to allow players to boost stats either temporarily or though it is more of a thing in the next one you can also get permanent boosts. On the cards thing you can also pay to improve your luck.

Some games use it to allow access to exclusive maps, areas, abilities (as in not just similar weapons but slightly different but whole other classes of abilities-- only paid users* can use magic and such).

*only paid or those that put in several hundred hours so practically speaking only those that paid still counts but has been seen.

Some games use it to get a player to quickly progress through a game. This can serve multiple purposes -- just because it takes 2 hours to play does not mean it took 2 hours to build and all that but if someone has paid you then it becomes less of an issue.

Some times this makes no broad difference to gameplay other than free to play people do not have as many strategies available to them (I have only the starting 5 guns or something where paid have 10 more, as no gun should be overpowered and the game should still be skill based this is not such a problem). Other times developers can crank the difficulty right up so only people that pay can get anywhere in the game. The latter is usually termed pay to win and is often seen in the Korean MMO side of things, it is also what several people assume all such games are (and such cynicism is not unwarranted a lot of the time). All seem to appeal to the sunk cost fallacy either on the time (why you may want to get people to sign in every day and delay them from going forward) or the money front.
In all cases I have ever seen this allows people to spend far far more money than a normal game might cost.

I have not truly investigated this like I have some other things and I have seen some things do it well (Illyriad, despite having an interesting fanbase, probably being one of the better examples). It gets a bit more complex as many games will hold contests for things that might cost money, might technically allow you to play fully and for free if you sign in every day (you might be able to miss a few each month but not many), abstract away costs with "points/tokens/coins" and other tricks more commonly seen with con artists and others that abuse the lessons psychology teaches us (sign your friends up and the like).


----------



## Gahars (Dec 15, 2013)

I honestly don't mind microtransactions, even in full priced retail games, as long as they're a) tied only to multiplayer, and b) balanced.

Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, for example, had an excellent system of microtransactions. The in-game currency were easy enough to earn through matches alone, so it was never necessary to buy the packs with real money, and all the packs were randomized, so there'd be no guarantee that you'd get good loot even if you did actually buy it. Plus, that game was built around cooperative gameplay, so it was never a huge problem if someone had better weapons/powers than another player.

There's a lot of gray areas with microtransactions. I don't blame developers and publishers for trying to earn some extra money, but as soon as it comes at the expense of the game itself, then it's a problem.


----------



## TheDarkSeed (Dec 15, 2013)

I'm switching to pong...


----------



## DJPlace (Dec 15, 2013)

this is what i buy for DLC.

ok for me is=new people and stages for fighters and other games. outfits (only if there on sale)


not ok=color changes. seriously who in gods name want's to pay money just to change color for a few bucks...

but buying a game to make you paying money to play a game is just fucking stupid...


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2013)

DJPlace said:


> but buying a game to make you paying money to play a game is just fucking stupid...



I was finding this line of thought to be odd. Then I realised I avoid going to clubs with a cover charge/entry charge.

On the other hand if the microtransactions allow me to assemble a more complete version of the game I got at a cut rate then I can see that. MX vs ATV had something like this I believe.


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 16, 2013)

Satangel said:


> Should only exist in F2P models, no where else. Especially in full fledged games that cost 50/60 USD, that's just a disgrace if there are still microtransactions in there.


 
But, should microtransactions in F2P games cost more than 10/20 bucks? I mean, the game is technically free, but the developers have to maintain some source of income. Doesn't Zynga make F2P games?


----------



## DS1 (Dec 16, 2013)

Well I would, if micro-transactions meant that a game would receive continued support with new content (that all depends on the game genre as well). In reality, a lot of larger devs are just using micro-transactions as a way to profit off of incomplete features that didn't make the final cut because the publisher rushed their game.


----------



## Steena (Dec 16, 2013)

I think the vote is worded wrongly.

"do you like microtransactions?" should have 100% No, at any given situation or game (even dota2 which is entirely aesthetic, and only possible because valve makes money exposure of the platform, more than the game itself).
One should never LIKE microtransactions. If you say you LIKE them, do you also think "gee, I hope this will have microtransactions!" on an upcoming game? Is that a feature for you, something you're looking forward to? I find it hard to believe, but I suppose anything is possible.

I think you should have worded your question like: "can you put up with microtransactions?".


----------



## Ericthegreat (Dec 16, 2013)

I bought all of the oblivion dlc >.>; most of it was shit.


----------



## lokomelo (Dec 16, 2013)

I followed every step since the Forza Motorsport 5 annoucement. Well the game now features less cars, less tracks and less game modes than FM4 (a X360 game btw). This is no big deal, since the game still have about 32 variations of 14 tracks and more than 200 cars, but the gamers started to got angry at first DLC, called "La Ferrari pack" wich features 1 exclusive car (La Ferrari) and 9 cars that were free on FM4. People got angry for paying for 9 cars that were already on disc, and were already avaliable on the past.

The angry keep growing when people started to realize that on the game you earnin game credits at a very slow rate, and the better cars had expansive values. And more than that, you could pay for "double earnings" (typical of F2P game).

Besides that, there was an "expansion pack" that includes "cars, tracks and more". This pack was removed before anyone buy it, but the content was spoted inside the game disc, so it was avaliable since day 1 too.

Now to summarize: playeres were angry with lack of content, then became more angry with low earning rates, than became even more angry with disc locked content + pay to win mechanics.

The result was that: http://news.xbox.com/2013/12/games-forza-5-economy-update they shiffted their polices (again)


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Dec 16, 2013)

I dislike microtransactions in general. That said, they can be done right. Take Path of Exile as an excellent example. There are no XP boosts, no tournament tickets, no gear to speak of, just purely cosmetic items and tabs for your stash box. That's all. Everything else is completely free. Yeah, a Free to Play game with absolutely no pay-to-win elements at all.

As for retail games, I don't so much mind them (Pay to win) if A.) The game is not multiplayer, and B.) The content in question can be obtained by normal means of game play within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the game can burn in the hottest level of hell. There should not ever be a time when people can rise above the normal players of a game exponentially quicker just because they have money. It's a disingenuous practice, and anyone who is paying for this content is just making things worse.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Dec 16, 2013)

of the games that I have played I had only bought proper DLC.
on Borderlands 2 I bought the season pass and got all the DLC, the new costumes and heads weren't included because those little things are what the cash more in the games.
even on GOTY editions of games they don't include costumes because are irrelevant for the game itself and that way they can continue to cash in with it.
proper DLC isn't a problem if the game fells complete and the DLC is an extra, the problem is when you need DLC to follow the plot.
as for costumes, you can ignore it and be happy with what is included in the game.
that being said I "bought" some costumes and heads for Borderlands 2, but wasn't really my money, since I used little profits from selling Steam trading cards.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 16, 2013)

Steena said:


> I think the vote is worded wrongly.
> 
> "do you like microtransactions?" should have 100% No, at any given situation or game (even dota2 which is entirely aesthetic, and only possible because valve makes money exposure of the platform, more than the game itself).
> One should never LIKE microtransactions. If you say you LIKE them, do you also think "gee, I hope this will have microtransactions!" on an upcoming game? Is that a feature for you, something you're looking forward to? I find it hard to believe, but I suppose anything is possible.
> ...



I dare say you have framed it oddly yourself. By and large I like what paid games have to offer and if micro transactions can help make more paid games then....

Am I inclined to headbutt quite a few of the people that were responsible for many of the current implementations of micro transactions? Absolutely.
Is the idea of micro transactions inherently flawed? Not at all. Indeed other than most payment providers disliking the transfer of small sums.


----------



## tbgtbg (Dec 16, 2013)

I want microtransactions in my games about as much as I'd like a micropenis in my pants. Not at all.

A game should be complete when you plonk down your sixty bucks. Yes, expansion packs that come along later (and are genuine expansions, not just stuff they deliberately held back to release later) are fine (though they really should sell them at retail not just as downloads, but that's another discussion) but nickel and diming gamers with this sort of shit is just ridiculous.


----------



## Steena (Dec 16, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Is the idea of micro transactions inherently flawed? Not at all. Indeed other than most payment providers disliking the transfer of small sums.


Depending on what you mean by "inherently flawed" (inherently being the key word here), I may personally consider every microtransaction, by nature, to be flawed. Microtransactions bank on the fact that a small amount of money equals no money at all for some people, and so they mass-purchase small quantities of products and end up paying more than what they actually realize. Abusing this fact, pretty much the entirety of microtransactions are, as a result, extremely overpriced.

Just compare the price of a full game, the result of 1 to 5 years of full-time work for a full team of developers, being priced at 40-60 euro/dollars.

Now get to re-use already existing assets or merely re-texture/re-name them, which is an abysmally smaller amount of work, being sold for 1 to 10 euro/dollars. The effort to value ratio is completely fucked up, and this is because microtransactions are designed to fuck it up in order to make more money, more easily.

If we consider the price of a generic game as an universal value, I'd put the actual value of most microtransactions to less than a cent individually, but they get rounded up to 1000% that amount because "who doesn't have one dollar? that's like nothing!".
There is a reason everyone is doing microtransations. You get away with using old assets and sell them one by one, fooling people who lack understanding in difference between creating something from the grounds-up and rehashing existing assets.

I have yet to see a microtransaction system/DLC priced in a way that would feel truly fair, compared to its respective game. And that would actually be stupid for a publisher to do, that's why they don't do it, they can just round everything up and sell it anyway.


----------



## Youkai (Dec 16, 2013)

sometimes I think it is a good thing especially when this helps to support f2p games and maybe if it is resonable help developer of good b2p games make a new part of a game as well.

But sadly 90%+ want a completely unresonable high ammount of money for everything -.- 
besteht current example i know except many Handy games would be that marvel puzzle quest game on steam where they want more than 1$ for 1 random Charakter you might not even want so 1$ for a lucky draw (if you use the expensive one it is even more expensive)


----------



## Narayan (Dec 17, 2013)

Steena said:


> I think the vote is worded wrongly.
> 
> "do you like microtransactions?" should have 100% No, at any given situation or game (even dota2 which is entirely aesthetic, and only possible because valve makes money exposure of the platform, more than the game itself).
> One should never LIKE microtransactions. If you say you LIKE them, do you also think "gee, I hope this will have microtransactions!" on an upcoming game? Is that a feature for you, something you're looking forward to? I find it hard to believe, but I suppose anything is possible.
> ...


I would actually LIKE, microtransactions, depending on what they are. Even in mmorpg, microtransactions can be handled well. 

I don't really like the paying to get it sooner. Because most people would rather buy it in the shop and people would complain it's almost Pay to Win.
I would prefer having some items ONLY available through microtransactions and some ONLY available on drops. 
This would support both the people that dishes out too much money and the ones who plays the game. Both sides can trade for what the other can only get.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Dec 17, 2013)

absa-fucking-loutely not.

I Freedom the fuck out of mobile F2P games.


----------



## guicrith (Dec 19, 2013)

I despise them but they should go down eventually and stabilize like when theirs too many bugs(the money of people that buy micro-transactions) then the bird(f2p game devs) population increases they eat all the bugs and theirs no bugs left and the birds starve(lose money) then the bird population goes down below what it was before the cycle then it repeats again(with a new trend online gaming,f2p,8bit games,war games and any future trend that makes them money NOTE:f2p is the only bad trend on the list)


----------



## DJ91990 (Dec 19, 2013)

I think if a retail game is going to have micro-transactions it should be cheeper and the micro-transactions should not be balance breaking. An example would be like the Black Lion Trading Company on Guildwars 2. Make the game $40 instead of $60 and have "neat" things like "Body Color Kits" "Aditional Music Tracks" and "Tournament Entry Tickets".

I don't mind micro-transactions when they don't become a pay-to-win or pay-not-play thing.



TwinRetro said:


> I dislike microtransactions in general. That said, they can be done right. Take Path of Exile as an excellent example. There are no XP boosts, no tournament tickets, no gear to speak of, just purely cosmetic items and tabs for your stash box. That's all. Everything else is completely free. Yeah, a Free to Play game with absolutely no pay-to-win elements at all.
> 
> 
> As for retail games, I don't so much mind them (Pay to win) if A.) The game is not multiplayer, and B.) The content in question can be obtained by normal means of game play within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, the game can burn in the hottest level of hell. There should not ever be a time when people can rise above the normal players of a game exponentially quicker just because they have money. It's a disingenuous practice, and anyone who is paying for this content is just making things worse.




That game better stay the HELL away from HELL-CON, or I'll launch it to the coldest reaches of space!


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Dec 19, 2013)

Arras said:


> World of Warcraft is like that as well, but with a full-priced expansion pack every year or so on top of it


First of all, no it's not, the new in-game store sells pets, mounts, and cosmetic helms, which have zero gameplay effects (unless you just started the game and don't have any mounts to your name, but that's a silly argument). They _do_ have services like character transfers and faction changes that cost a pretty penny, but I hardly consider them microtransactions. I just consider them expensive services.

Anywhoo, like 90% of the people here have said, I dislike microtransactions, but whether or not I can, to quote ShadowSoldier, "put up with them" depends entirely on the definition of microtransaction and what the microtransaction is. I'm basically going to be mirroring one of FAST's and pretty much everyone else's posts.

Purely-cosmetic: totally fine. Whether they're armor pieces that go in a separate slot of normal equipment, skins, pets (with no abilities), etc., they're A-OK in my book.

Items available to players through normal gameplay in a reasonable amount of time: I don't like it, but I can live with it. Also depends on the ratio between the item's worth, its cost, and the amount of time/sheer luck it would take to get it.

Everything else: gtfo of my game. I don't want to wait 48 hours for a building to finish being constructed when Dumbass McInheritance gets it immediately. I don't want to be vastly outpowered compared to people who spend real money. And, I might as well throw this out there, I don't want to be charged for something that was already completed but pulled for the game for later microtransactions, ie on-disc DLC. 

People swear by the Guild Wars 2 microtransaction system, but even that isn't purely cosmetic. I have yet to try this Path of Exile, but I may soon seeing as how I desire an online game where my poor ass is just as powerful as the next guy.


----------



## Gamer4life (Dec 19, 2013)

might get hate might not and i havent read through this whole post but imho the one person who does like pay for stuff correctly is tf2 you get i think like 99.99% of any item you pay for for free just by playing the game


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Dec 21, 2013)

Angry Birds Go is f***ing insane with micro-transactions, also known as in-app/in-game purchases. $50+ for a Kart? I could buy an entire Mario Kart game for that, and I would be getting more than 1 go-kart.


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 21, 2013)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> Angry Birds Go is f***ing insane with micro-transactions, also known as in-app/in-game purchases. $50+ for a Kart? I could buy an entire Mario Kart game for that, and I would be getting more than 1 go-kart.


 
How about this? 20$ a hero, and there are 8 heroes. I can get those and more in SSBB and only pay 50$. And don't forget the character enhancements which are 5$ apiece. Sure, it doesn't sound like much; but it becomes a lot when you already have 40 heroes.


----------



## enarky (Dec 21, 2013)

Microtransactions and DLC is the cancer that kills gaming. I want a complete game when I pay full price, please.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 21, 2013)

enarky said:


> [snip] DLC is the cancer that kills gaming[snip]



Said cancer has surely existed for decades at this point then considering it used to be called an expansion pack.


----------



## enarky (Dec 21, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Said cancer has surely existed for decades at this point then considering it used to be called an expansion pack.


Back then I physically owned the medium said expansion pack was delivered on. I could do whatever I wanted with it and if I didn't like it or didn't have any use for it I could resell it. Now I'm completely dependent on a publisher offering said expansion pack in the future and it's tied to my account on a specific network. I'd say that's quite a step back, don't you?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 21, 2013)

I do often enough see expansion packs as standalone but yeah it does seem to have become the exception or something to actually note. One can only hope resale will be sorted out before long.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Dec 21, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> I do often enough see expansion packs as standalone but yeah it does seem to have become the exception or something to actually note. One can only hope resale will be sorted out before long.


We need more Sonic & Knuckles-type games. Buy it and start playing immediately. Have a previous game and the amount of fun you can have doubles.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 22, 2013)

Perhaps somewhat amusing is I believe S&K was developed alongside Sonic 3.

That said I am sitting here trying to think of what goes there in recent times.... the closest I can get and that is technically not even there is the GTA4 expansions.

Maybe the Dead Rising 2 paid demo boost thing.

I am going to have to have a little think now.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Dec 22, 2013)

To hell with micro transactions on full-priced games. I'm fine with them on F2P games (might be because I don't play any F2P games, with the exception of TF2 _which I paid full price for_) but stay the hell away from my full-priced games.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 22, 2013)

"Full priced games", especially in this time of steam sales though budget, enhanced and collectors editions are hardly new, seems like an odd, possibly completely arbitrary, notion to me when I compare it against everything else out there.
Now the ideas of free to play and microtransactions really probably do want to be built into the game from the ground up rather than slapped on haphazardly but I am still not sure the idea of full price does or should mean anything.


----------



## Chocolina (Dec 27, 2013)

Micro transactions are mostly bullshit because their nickle-and-dime-you-until-poverty philosophy keeps most people from fully experiencing everything about a game and creates an unspoken, unnatural elitist community that has
no decent right to exist.
It also contributes to shitty service practices like "well we couldn't get done with this one thing about the game by the launch window so we'll charge extra"

This is where Nintendo still accels and becomes relevant in MY gaming world because they still have that pure-hearted mentality of releasing things at a standard of quality that many of us take for granted. Yes they still release turds, but they're polished turds.

I still believe in one-time payments for the full-fucking game, but as long as you idiots still contribute to this dlc and microtransaction madness,  then the golden past of gaming is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

They do it this way because it's the most profitable to be shittyto their fans' financial situation and you people (everyone) are enabling them.  and sorry for any errors above. I'm swypingthis post on a phone and it increasingly becomes bbuggy with input the longer I write a post.

At least a majority of handhelds both 3ds and vita games have resisted micro transactions


----------



## calmwaters (Dec 27, 2013)

Chocolina said:


> Micro transactions are mostly bullshit because their nickle-and-dime-you-until-poverty philosophy keeps most people from fully experiencing everything about a game and creates an unspoken, unnatural elitist community that has
> no decent right to exist.
> It also contributes to shitty service practices like "well we couldn't get done with this one thing about the game by the launch window so we'll charge extra"
> 
> ...


 
Yes; people who believe Nintendo should allow microtransactions (a la dlc) can go suck a dick. It's because of fourteen year olds that I have to suffer in my gaming experience. And then they have the nerve to complain about cheating. Nickling and diming people is a good incentive for people to pirate cheat since people either have no money for such outrageous prices or they spend their money on more worthwhile causes, like groceries and gas bills.


----------



## Chocolina (Dec 27, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> Yes; people who believe Nintendo should allow microtransactions (a la dlc) can go suck a dick. It's because of fourteen year olds that I have to suffer in my gaming experience. And then they have the nerve to complain about cheating. Nickling and diming people is a good incentive for people to pirate cheat since people either have no money for such outrageous prices or they spend their money on more worthwhile causes, like groceries and gas bills.


Well don't take what I say to heart because I'm also a flip flopper on alot of issues. Contradicting my original post, I actually believe freemium is the way to go, but freemiuim in it's current form isn't done exactly right to my personal liking, and nearly all the games that do rely on freemium are cookie-cutter-formula games, devoid of any originality, of any substance, are designed to work against you, force you to grind exponentially, and above all else, suck.

I guess on the bright side is the more capable emulation becomes, the easier it becomes to regress to playing older games that we're all still craving.


----------



## kyogre123 (Jan 2, 2014)

If microtransactions are something to cut time in a game, then it's ok and I pretty much don't care about its existence, yet should not be abused...

If microtransactions consist on unavailable ingame stuff, then it's a big NO; only developers who offer completely free games have the right to implement this.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 2, 2014)

kyogre123 said:


> If microtransactions are something to cut time in a game, then it's ok and I pretty much don't care about its existence, yet should not be abused...
> 
> If microtransactions consist on unavailable ingame stuff, then it's a big NO; only developers who offer completely free games have the right to implement this.



The former we used to call in game cheats.

Why should it be an either or? Full price plus does seem a bit tasteless but token sum and then some more does seem like a model that could work.


----------



## questccg (Jan 4, 2014)

I was wondering if players (gamers) would be more interested in Micro Transactions if the game was FREE.  So basically you would download the game FREE (no charge) and then player could play the game *AS-IS*.  If players want more content (Assets), they would have to purchase credits and then use those to buy *more* game assets. Basically your game will get BETTER because you have bought better game assets.

I have also been thinking about Abilities which COST in-game credits...  So let's say you have a wizard and you want to use his *Firestorm* ability.  Using such an ability might cost credits...  Otherwise you could only rely on passive abilities which are again passive (no user input) and FREE.

But remember, the game will be offered FREE of charge.  For more competitive players, there would be Micro-Transactions that allow a player to buy like 500 in-game credits in exchange for something like $5.00 USD.

Another aspect I am trying to include is *Random bundles*.  Basically this means instead of purchasing that *Stone Golem*, you will purchase a PACK of like 4 minions that will be RANDOM.  Something like 2 Commons, 1 Uncommon and 1 Rare...  The server would randomly determine what you get...  And it knows what you have so NO DUPLICATES (that should make players happy!)  This sort of bundle would cost much less in terms of credits instead of purchasing actual minions directly.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 4, 2014)

questccg said:


> I was wondering if players (gamers) would be more interested in Micro Transactions if the game was FREE.  So basically you would download the game FREE (no charge) and then player could play the game *AS-IS*.  If players want more content (Assets), they would have to purchase credits and then use those to buy *more* game assets. Basically your game will get BETTER because you have bought better game assets.
> 
> I have also been thinking about Abilities which COST in-game credits...  So let's say you have a wizard and you want to use his *Firestorm* ability.  Using such an ability might cost credits...  Otherwise you could only rely on passive abilities which are again passive (no user input) and FREE.
> 
> ...




There is nothing really new in any of that.

The first part is basically describing a free to play game monetised by sale of in game assets. The question then comes in whether these purchases (not sure why they have to first be credits and then in game rather than straight costs) are "pointless" aesthetic extras you buy to feed the devs (there are nice people out there but when there is no great incentive then basically everybody is a free rider), marginal tweaks on existing characters (half damage but double speed of the usual character) or straight up those that pay in real money have better characters (usually a very fast way to break your game and also get it labelled "pay to win" which is rarely good).

Abilities which cost credits are also nothing new, Bravely Default recently featured them if you want a handheld example to go with your other threads. Sometimes they come in the form of character/weapon/player boosts.

Random bundles are not normally seen in those sorts of games but in collectible card game type things they are all the rage. I am not sure if the server side checks/elimination/draw numbers out of a bag approach is a great one compared to being able to have your players trade unwanted duplicates/items/monsters with each other. That said you also introduce a gambling element and that works for a lot of people.

Personally I find the main problem for the little guy to play in this world is there is no good way to transfer small sums of money over the internet-- not a chance for credit cards, paypal/amazon will eat your profits as their fees, cash does not work over the internet and nobody under 30 really has a cheque book any more. I have now seen and played with some means to do paid phone calls and text messages similar to how you used to get ringtones and find out what holiday you won on a scratch card.


----------



## questccg (Jan 4, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> Random bundles are not normally seen in those sorts of games but in collectible card game type things they are all the rage. I am not sure if the server side checks/elimination/draw numbers out of a bag approach is a great one compared to being able to have your players trade unwanted duplicates/items/monsters with each other. That said you also introduce a gambling element and that works for a lot of people.


 

Trading of in-game assets could be GOOD.  Maybe set up two different types of access:

1. From the Internet using Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari with SSL security.

This would allow players to *trade* their game assets with *security*.  Obviously the downside is they would not be able to do that from their DSi.  But for the added security, *trading* or *selling* may be an option.  This also opens up the possibilities of having doubles of assets.  You could trade them or sell them.  Thanks for that idea!

2. From your DSi to the server with limited security.

Firstly there is no encryption between DSi and Server.  But the information exchanged between DSi client and server is all about what account to use.  It's important, but not the end of the world if you get *impersonated*.  Assets are downloaded to the DSi client (into the SDHC Slot-2 card) and synchronized with the server (based on what a player has).  

Keeping both aspects separate is a GOOD idea.  You could probably even use your Nintendo Web Browser to do the Server side of things...  That's another possibility.  but thanks for the *trading* aspect, I had not thought of that!


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 4, 2014)

Would security encryption really be necessary past a login? Even then you could probably do something at Application Layer (personally I would do it anyway to prevent certain other types of attacks) rather than hope SSL works (there have been some successes with SSL on the DS but I am not sure how far it went)


----------



## questccg (Jan 4, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> Would security encryption really be necessary past a login? Even then you could probably do something at Application Layer (personally I would do it anyway to prevent certain other types of attacks) rather than hope SSL works (there have been some successes with SSL on the DS but I am not sure how far it went)


 

Well using SSL for more than a login protects the *information* of each account.  So by encrypting communication PAST the login, reduces the chances of other forms of attacks.  Why?  Because people cannot know what is the contents of the other accounts.  Just using HTTP past a login means that the communications can be intercepted and then people can figure out who has the *larger* accounts (with most game assets).

With the DSi client, I've never seen SSL on a socket.  I think there are examples, but the key management is a hassle.


----------



## Jean Karlo (Jan 4, 2014)

They should only exist in free2play and in whole games they should not exist at all. They are just an excuse for making more money.


----------



## questccg (Jan 4, 2014)

Jean Karlo said:


> They should only exist in free2play and in whole games they should not exist at all.


 

I don't know if you know the game "Stormfall". It is a Facebook game. It uses Micro-Transaction in the form of Gems. Just being able to build WALLS around your castle costs like $10.00! If you want to upgrade those walls to level 2 or level 3, it costs EVEN MORE! I think this form of *gouging* is RIDICULOUS. It shows right away, the players who *pay-to-play* and the others who have no castle walls!

In my WIP (Work-In-Progress), I am thinking that each player should have an Avatar (no - not like the movie, like the Hindu reincarnation of a God). Your character will be kept separate from the game... In that people who choose to play-for-free don't get the benefit of their Avatar. However if you pay-to-play, your Avatar will have certain *extra* abilities... Not sure - yet!


----------



## Jean Karlo (Jan 4, 2014)

Oh man i know... I play castle clash and is obvious that the people that pay to play have advantage.. I
I encourage you to do that, even more if it is a competitive play so tgat no ones have any disadvantages... I agree Microtransactions should be for "Pimping" a game and not required for progressing quicker than others.


----------



## questccg (Jan 4, 2014)

Jean Karlo said:


> Oh man i know... I play castle clash and is obvious that the people that pay to play have advantage...


 

Well thinking about *having an advantage* versus free-play, I have been thinking about the D&D concept known as "Saving Throws".  What it pretty much means is that when a player uses a spell (Micro-Transaction), each of your units perform a "saving throw" to try to either lower the damage caused by it OR to avoid the attack altogether.  The cool thing about this is FREE players would not have a level up character (Avatar), so they would only benefit from basic defence.  A player with a level up character would have greater odds of lowering the amount of damage and better odds of avoiding this type of attack.  I think this is fair...  Basic vs. enhanced defence.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 5, 2014)

questccg I reckon you should have a watch of


----------



## questccg (Jan 5, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> questccg I reckon you should have a watch of ...


 

I watched the video, not sure what struck me more:

1. People not having enough time to play all the great games developed.
2. People not wanting to give up their characters in WOW so they pay the subscription fee.
3. There is not much board game piracy, because it's labour intensive to actually MAKE a game (physical parts and all).

Either way, the goal of a Free-to-Play is obviously to get players INTERESTED in the game. It's not really about playing the game Free. Games that are available for free are designed as a way of trying out the game before spending money on the game later. I think it should be labelled *Free-To-TRY*...

From there each player can determine how much they want to invest in the game.

That's my take on things!

Note: Personally I like *Micro-Transactions* but only if they affect the game play. I don't want to buy/customize my character FOR A PRICE. That to me should be FREE... Where I feel Micro-Transactions are interesting is *unlocking* other aspects to the game. So game features that a free player would not have access to. Or only to *preview* of what the game allows if you are willing to spend a couple bucks on.

On my last Play-For-Free game, I spent about $30.00. And I played the game for over 6 months. Having *Guilds* and other such aspects tend to make the game more interesting in that there is cooperative game play.

But personally I don't want to *overburden* the development of a free app/game with too many features. I think it's probably best to have a solid *core* and build from there...

Like take a quest game, when you visit the local tavern you could have a list of the available quests... Then you could talk to the barkeep about "Special Missions" that can only be played if a player pays for the quest... Something like that (although not what I plan on implementing)...

Note 2:  That WOW info about keeping their characters makes me wonder if I should implement a game policy in which if you have not played with your *character* for a period of 3 months, your character and his stats will be erased.  Or something like that...


----------

