[PPOTW] Do you like micro transactions?

[FAST6191]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

questccg I reckon you should have a watch of