There's not a lot to be said about micropayments that hasn't been said before, both loudly and in an irate tone of voice. For some, micropayments are the herald of a new way to nickel and dime gamers. For others, they give gamers the opportunity to get more game than they otherwise might. Both of these can be true; it's a matter of an individual gamer's perspective as to which he or she focuses.
For the purposes of our argument, let's break games with micropayments into three categories:
- Full priced games that sell small bits of content to expand the existing product
- Low priced games that sell a small initial bit of content and expand upon it with additional content for a price
- Free games that are supported by selling content or in game advantages
Each of these three types make the case for microtransactions in a different way, and each presents different value to different gamers. Some that would spend $10 on a new character for Mass Effect 2 wouldn't even download a free copy of Dungeons and Dragons Online, let alone buy a potion that would increase experience gain.
It's still a very new concept, so the questions of value versus price haven't yet been answered. Companies are struggle to answer why $2.50 is too much for horse armor, but $2.00 is reasonable for a Red-Riding Hood Costume. Meanwhile, gamers are forced to look at each piece of DLC individually and ask themselves, "Is this worth it?"
So what do you think? Do you regularly (or irregularly) make micro-purchases? Do you feel that they're positive or negative? Are there some circumstances in which you'd make a microtransaction, but another when you wouldn't? Why or why not?
Spencer Williams
I believe that micropayments are ok if they are reasonable priced for the content. Like Modern Warfare twos stimulus package for 5 maps it is not worth 15 dollars in any way and with other companies like bioware and Valve making DLC for free and for me that makes there game's more appealing.
ReplyDeleteI myself very rarely shell out for incidental add-ons. I will admit, I did spend 600 or so Microsoft Points to deck out my Xbox Live avatar with neat hats and a popcorn prop. That's different though, surely. Because all my friends can see my decked out avatar and see how cool I am. I bought a popcorn prop! I'm awesome. Right? ...hello...?
ReplyDeleteI think Valve got it right - downloadable content, and whatnot, should always be free. Team Fortress 2's map updates could have very easily become optional game addons, for paying users only, and so could have Left 4 Dead's "Survival Pack" and "Crash Course" updates. Yet they have remained absolute - they will not charge PC users for incidental updates, and keep it as cheap as possible on Xbox Live.
Levels for 50 cents a pop... that seems like a good deal. Like what the Maw did. Train models for $5. That's awful. I'm paying for software, I'm paying for people's work and effort and coding - not a train model. It's not REAL. So maps, levels, weapons and whatnot - they represent weeks or months worth of work, coding, balancing, playtesting, and what have you. They're micro-addons worth PAYING for, because it's work, being turned into cash for the company. They might spend it on a fancy new water cooler.
But hats, armour, clothes - not just in "real" games, but in browser games like Farmville, and Icy Tower! - that's not work. That's blatant profiteering. And that's not worth paying for, ever. When you have some companies that are being smart about their customer's enjoyment, being as cheap as possible with addons (free, even), some micro-payments just don't seem worth the effort.
I think micropayments should be available where it makes the most sense. I myself won't buy anything for Farmville, because while it's an okay game I don't invest enough time in it to make such a purchase worth it.
ReplyDeleteAs a TF2 player, I myself have said I'd welcome the idea of a store being opened in Steam in which a player can buy special hats or misc items for say, 50c an item. Lots of people say that'd be a bad thing in such a good game, but I like the idea that all the normal hats remain in the game as drops/crafts and that contribution items keep getting introduced as such. But then have some new official ones available for sale, so if you wanted one you COULD buy it, but it wouldn't in anyway cheapen the experience of obtaining a Fancy Fedora, since it's still only available in a drop. But I digress..
Players of Oblivion welcomed The Knights Of The Nine DLC because it gave them a new variable to work with in the game, and provided a whole heap of new gameplay. In a game like Grand Theft Auto IV, selling the ability to see and drive a single new cartype wouldn't be enough to warrant payment, but if say, the game made 100 buildings that were previously just there for show fully explorable, or a whole new aspect of gameplay were added that changed the gameworld, then I'd be interested.
I read that the creators of Mass Effect 2 upon releasing the game, released DLC days later that expanded the world. What this says is that they had this DLC ready before the game was released, but rather than include it in the game, decided to squeeze players for that little extra money. This I find is "blatant profiteering". Imagine if GSC said "Look, I know you want to explore the S.T.A.L.K.E.R wastelands more, but if you want to get out of the first area, but you have to pay to do that." I paid $50 for my game, so I should get the full game, shouldn't I?
DLC should come secondary to expand upon the original game; it should not be a necessity.
However, then you've got that section of people who enjoy supporting the developers. This is a "noble" thing, but again is something that should really only be done if it's worth it. Like I said, I'd gladly pay 50c or even a dollar for a hat in TF2, or $15 for The Passing DLC that's coming out for L4D2/L4D1, not only because I play the games but because with all the free stuff Valve gives us, I'd like to give something back. However, I won't go overboard and buy something I wasn't going to use just because it benefits someone else; that becomes a waste of money.
It all comes down to what you want. If someone wants to make their farm in Farmville bigger and doesn't mind spending a little cash, then by all means it's a good deal. However, companies who are cutting their games in half to force people to buy the DLC, thats just bad, and shows they have no idea how to make the customer happy.
TL;DR DLC is a great way to support the developers after the game is released, but as with all products; some micropayments just aren't worth it.
[...] made a comment on the Nation Of Gamers blog’s latest post concerning the idea of micropayments and downloadable content ..., and decided to share it with you, because it’s a big comment compared to what I normally write [...]
ReplyDeleteON "Full priced games that sell small bits of content to expand the existing product"
ReplyDeleteGamers have a responsibility to manage their own budgets, they are not nickel and dimed by anyone but themselves.
Believe it or not, selling small bits of content allow for gamers to make smarter decisions! Mass Effect 2 for example, currently there are only two pay-for pieces of content, one is a brand-new character, the other is a set of three outfits. I make the conscious decision to buy the character because I want more Mass Effect 2, and choose not to spend money to give Jack a pair of sunglasses.
Had the two been packaged, the price would be inflated and I would be paying for stuff I don't want. Hypothetically, lets say Bioware released 2 new characters and 12 new outfits each on its own , this works in favor of the gamer who can pick and chose what he or she wants instead of the "Big Bit" sale, where everything was packaged together and if you just wanted one or two pieces of content- you were going to pay for everything.
However, in all scenarios of micro-transactions the power (and the voice) lies with the gamer. Gamers can chose not to spend money if the product is unsatisfactory or too expensive.
For me DLC adds lifetime to a game. For example I love rock band, and I still play the original. I play expert drums, and I am always looking for a new challenge. Rock band has new songs for download almost every week, and they have hundreds of songs to choose from that are already in their marketplace. The cost per song is about $2.00 or 160 Microsoft Fun Points, and to me that's worth it. Each song is almost like a new game and challenge added into it, it's also just music you can listen to. The DLC can also attract new players to the game because of the variety of genres of music to choose from. I have not stopped loving Rock Band, ever since buyng it when it first came out, it's the DLC that keep it new and fun.
ReplyDeleteMicro-payments for cosmetic items in games, both single and multiplayer don't appeal to me. On the whole i tend to avoid micropayments, mainly because i got burned by the borderlands 2nd DLC (Mad Moxxies) which i payed 12.50 for which was about 3 hours of VERY repetitive gameplay.
ReplyDeleteI'm not fond of micropayments in games such as Battle Field Heroes that give players an unfair advantage in games in which better weapons can be purchased which makes the game a showcase on how much money invested than actual skill. I cannot however deny that it draws on the competitive nature of people, who will invest money into a game to be the best (such as restraunt city)
Well timed DLC and cosmetic changes only seem to draw more cash into an old franchise and its debatable depending on the quality of the content and how much depth it adds to the game itself, but for the time-being I choose not to spend extra money on games i bought other than Eve which is constantly updating and requires daily maintenance of their servers.
At least with MMOs players are paying for their favorite game's running cost as well as the extra content. The catch here is that the new content has to be to standards otherwise they will lose potential income through loss of subscriptions, where as DLC may only be intended for a smaller portion of owners to purchase so that they may profit on the existing product.
I hate it really. I don't really like spending ten bucks, five bucks or anything on top of my 60 dollar purchase of a game. If its worth it to me, like elder scrolls 4 or Fallout 3 DLC was in my opinion worth it, then i may spend it, but even for those i waited for the Game of the Year edition to come out. The only DLC i ever spent money on what COD 4 map pack and it really wasn't worth it.
ReplyDeletePersonally i think that if they come out with new stuff for the game if they want to put a price on it then just make it temporary, make it free after a while. Or make it like an expansion pack like MMOs do.
The world of DLC and micropayments is still relatively new, and none of us can be sure how it will pan out in the long run. However, we've already seen markedly different approaches to providing extra content. Valve continue to provide updates to TF2 for free, as they seem to take the view that everything they give to the community will eventually come back to them with interest - good will engendered will result in increased sales of their next title. Other companies have quite reasonably gone for the immediate remuneration option of charging for new content, whether that be a big chunk of DLC or simple horse armour.
ReplyDeleteI haven't quite made up my mind where I sit on this particular issue, but I feel that consistency is the key. If micropayments are going to give players the option of gaining an edge over others then that has to be built into the game's philosophy and design from the beginning. Thus people know what they are getting into when they sign up for the game, and are on less steady ground if they complain about being on the receiving end of a pounding from a shiny and expensive boomstick. It would also seem reasonable that the front end charge for such a title be less than that of a comparable game not offering micropayments.
A major pitfall with DLC is that people are perhaps more likely to feel cheated from their money buying new content and being disappointed than they would be buying a completely new game. Maybe companies could implement a system whereby you can at least sample the new content to see whether it is worth the extra money to you - for instance, Assassins' Creed could offer one or two assassination missions in a new story block, and you could choose to pay for the rest. This might have the unwanted side effect of large amounts of effort being poured into these taster missions to tempt us to pay for an otherwise underdeveloped section of game, but sometimes we have to have faith in a developer's collective sense of pride and self-respect.
My brother is a huge LBP fan and buys loads of DLC every month. I don't get any, and save for full blown games. There's clearly a market for this kind of thing, and it depends on the person and on the game whether it works or not. Personally, I don't like DLC because I feel developers could be spending their resources on new IPs and games.
ReplyDeleteI am not opposed to paying for extra content that costs money to develop. If a new song comes out for Rock Band, and I want it, I'll pay for it. It cost money to make, and is worth money to me.
ReplyDeleteA new costume for my sackboy, while may have also cost time and money to produce, it not worth money to me.
I guess what it comes down to is if it enhances my gaming experience, I am willing to pay a reasonable price for it. Something that is new and different, like a new song, sure. Something that is merely cosmetic and doesn't change my experience at all, no, probably not.
I'm not a fan of DLC really. I find it overpriced for content that is usually lacking a bit. However, some content is worth it. (I don't regret buying those Rock Band songs at all) Seeing how this is fairly new, I can't say how it will expand in the future. Perhaps it will be better then. For now I really believe this is a situational topic, so I'm going to address the three situations you've presented me with in turn.
ReplyDeleteOn full priced games with additional content it really depends on the content being released and it's price. For Modern Warfare 2 the map expansions weren't worth the fifteen dollars. I'm not a COD player but I have several friend who were extremely unhappy with their purchase afterwords. If you are going to offer extra maps, why not let them be free? They're only maps. How long could it have taken the developers to make them with their resources? It just seems like a way to suck money out of gullible buyers. I firmly believe things should be kept the way the Valve has them. Valve has made me into a life long customer with their free updates. I look forward to updates instead of dreading shelling out some more money just continue playing. I don't want to feel like I'm back at the arcade putting in another quarter to continue.
With games that are low in price but promise to expand I find it a bit silly. Why couldn't the developers just release everything at one and charge one price for it? It just seems logical to me.
Free games, such as Farmville, which charge for extra content or game advantages I would never personally pay for, This seems like a bit of a waste. You're not competing with anyone at all. There's no real "multiplayer" function to Farmville. There really isn't a benefit to any of the objects you can buy in Farmville, other than to make your farm a little different from your neighbors. To e spending real money on something like this is just a bit silly.
What it all comes down to though is the gamer's choice. You're the one making the call to pay or not. Remember, you can always stop playing one game if it requires you to keep paying and start another. Think it through first and ask yourself, "Do I really want or need this?" If the answer is "Yes" then go right ahead but if you're struggling to find a reason to buy some DLC then you most likely shouldn't buy it.
Farewell for now and happy gaming,
TF2 was, and is, the perfect example of how to make customers fall in love with a company for how they treat customers after they've published a game.
ReplyDeleteI've never liked DLC. There was only one time I downloaded DLC, for Castle Crashers, and I really regret doing it, seeing as I never play the game anymore.... Anyway, I've never found a DLC that was really worth money, but what I've noticed is that many games have DLC that force you to buy it, whether by kicking you from a server for not having a DLC map, or getting shredded because you don't have the new "Kaiser Shredder Rocket-Sniper" DLC weapon. The only company I've liked that has forced people to get the DLC is Valve. Specifically, Team Fortress 2. All DLC in Team Fortress 2 is free, and they literally force you to download it, because really, why wouldn't you? However, by doing this, they've made their DLC into something more like regular updates, and I'm too tired to write more stuff, so yeah.
ReplyDeleteI for one am not a fan of most microtransactions. My first intro to them was playing a free browser game and those who paid got a clear in game advantage....bad form if you ask me and I soon quit that game. Unbalancing in favor of the payers doesn't incentivize me to pay, it makes me want to quit. There are plenty of games out there that I don't have to waste time with imbalancing along financial lines.
ReplyDeleteIf you want an example of someone doing it right, on the other hand, look at Riot Games' League of Legends- a free game with microtransactions that can be purchased or unlocked with ingame, play-based currency. Takes longer to unlock but you don't HAVE TO buy to keep up. I have no problem dropping in my share of cash to help support a great game with this style of microtransactions.
I don't care what the method of microtransactions is. My rule of thumb is that I'll only make a micropayment to a good game.
ReplyDeleteIf a game isn't enjoyable at first, I don't trust that the addition of content will make it any better.
DLC and Microtransactions are commonly hit or miss in the gaming world right now. We look back at things like Halo 3 Map Packs and Oblivion/Fallout 3 expansion packs and think to ourselves "That was definitely worth it". While having to pay just to make our horse look shiny (You know what I'm talking about Bethesda)doesn't justify a $2.50 payment.
ReplyDeleteMicrotransactions are a good thing for gamers and their developers by not having to spend time going to a store to get a little add-on for a game you already have, but by just turning on your computer/console. Developers have found a great way to reach their fanbase and not use money on small things like cover art, manuals, and copies. I will pay virtual moneez for a good couple of maps for MW2/Halo 3, but I won't spend 2 dollars for a 2 minute song by some Screamo band for Rock band. I shouldn't get in the way of people who do want to buy it though. If you want to spend your money for add-ons for your games, go ahead. You give a little, you gain a little.
P.S. Free stuf fur mah gamez plox!