I have been thinking about this lately because people hear "micro transactions" and suddenly lose their mind. I understand this to a point because it is really annoying when you can't just pay a base price and have the whole game. But sometimes, I think they are reasonable. I have played Pokemon Shuffle for over a year and have spent a total $10. I only even spent the money because it was a BOGO sale and I wanted the give the developers some money for all of the hours I have enjoyed this game. Pokemon Shuffle is honestly a game that I would pay full price for, so the micro transactions actually saved me money in this case.
Are Micro Transactions Really That Bad?
- Thread starter Dame6089
- Start date
ambersroses81
Well-Known Member
- 11
- 2016
- 1
- Credits
- 1,000
Some games I absolutely have no problem spending money on premium items and micro transactions. There are some though that are pay to win or that just absolutely soak people. I have a problem with those games, please don't tell me that I don't need to pay to play your game when in reality, if I want to spend an enjoyable amount of time playing I do need to pay.
Amit Panthi
Well-Known Member
- 17
- 2016
- 0
- Credits
- 500
Micro transactions are awesome and are quite necessary for the developers to sustain themselves. However, it depends on how the micro transactions affect the game. As long as the item you purchase via money does not change the gameplay to your certain advantage (or disadvantage), it's awesome. No one likes to get beaten by a guy who sucks at the game but is apparently able to afford gear that you can't.
Yes, they are terrible and can destroy games! Just look at RuneScape 3. They filled the game with microtransactions and now RS3 is a wasteland. The 2007 knock-off they released is way more popular and it's an old, buggy game. Just because it has not microtransactions.
Some games do them properly, though. League of Legends for example only has cosmetic microtransactions, which supports the company but doesn't alter gameplay in any way.
Some games do them properly, though. League of Legends for example only has cosmetic microtransactions, which supports the company but doesn't alter gameplay in any way.
Amit Panthi
Well-Known Member
- 17
- 2016
- 0
- Credits
- 500
Don't you have to grind for an eternity though if you want to play all the heroes in LoL?
Hey Amit. To be fair, yes, you make a fair point. But at least if you grind you can get them. In RuneScape, there are some items that you can only obtain through microtransactions. And in League you can just have 3 or 4 main champions and be content.
They're only bad when they completely put a hault to your ability to progress. For example, I loved buying the powerful weapons and skins in the FPS Warface and given that the game was free and I enjoyed playing it on a daily basis, I felt that it was only fair to show my support to the developers while also getting some dank guns.
But when it comes to games like NFS: No Limits, made by satan overlord EA, I was really pissed when there was a set of races that had you unlock an awesome Nissan GTR R34 at the end, I ended up spending all my cash only to realize that to actually win the car, you had to spend real money. That sort of mindset persisted in the game and eventually had me uninstall the pile of crap. The same goes to the majority of free mobile games and it is understandable that developers need to make money somehow, but energy systems just ruin your ability to have fun. Its unfortunate because you get people who end up spending thousands of dollars on what is in essence PNG images only to see that game's servers shut down or something silly like that.
So I guess like with all things in gaming, it does depend on the game itself. I had no problem paying to unlock the extra levels in the beautiful mobile game Monument Valley because I got it when it was free, but I did not bother spending a cent on "unlimited energy" in Modern Combat 5 because EA make billions of dollars and my $60 will go unnoticed and unappreciated by lazy, money-hungry developers.
But when it comes to games like NFS: No Limits, made by satan overlord EA, I was really pissed when there was a set of races that had you unlock an awesome Nissan GTR R34 at the end, I ended up spending all my cash only to realize that to actually win the car, you had to spend real money. That sort of mindset persisted in the game and eventually had me uninstall the pile of crap. The same goes to the majority of free mobile games and it is understandable that developers need to make money somehow, but energy systems just ruin your ability to have fun. Its unfortunate because you get people who end up spending thousands of dollars on what is in essence PNG images only to see that game's servers shut down or something silly like that.
So I guess like with all things in gaming, it does depend on the game itself. I had no problem paying to unlock the extra levels in the beautiful mobile game Monument Valley because I got it when it was free, but I did not bother spending a cent on "unlimited energy" in Modern Combat 5 because EA make billions of dollars and my $60 will go unnoticed and unappreciated by lazy, money-hungry developers.
The only issue I have with being charged for extra content, is that more and more software developers are using this to make extra money, and a lot of the content they're charging extra for, should really be included with the original game.
Why should I pay $60 but then find out that I have to pay another $3 just to play the last level? It's out of order and it's uncalled for, especially when they're charging so much for the game in the first place.
Why should I pay $60 but then find out that I have to pay another $3 just to play the last level? It's out of order and it's uncalled for, especially when they're charging so much for the game in the first place.
Maybe not now, but what if all future games become micro transactions? Its something that needs to stop before it flourishes.