pc>console for this reason alone

The other issue that microtransactions like these creates is that a video game company may intentionally leave out levels, unlockables, etc with the sole intention of putting it up for purchase after the games release.

For example: During creation of a halo 3 type game if they've created 15 levels that can be included in the game, but intentionally only include 12 in the released version, only to put up the extra 3 maps at a later date.

Why would they not do this when it only results in more money from the consumer. We have no way of knowing how or when the content was created and it increases the cash flow to the company.

For all intents and purposes, these things you can purchase through microtransactions ought to be in the game already.

Don't worry. In the real world, at the rate US currency is inflating, microtransactions won't be an issue.

I sense some sour grapes.

It's not up to you to decide what "should" be free in a game. The makers of Oblivion obviously thought that horses dying were part of the experience, and a bunch of gamers didn't like it. Frankly, it's not up to gamers to decide how a game "should" work. They released a cheat (you call it a patch) and charged for it, perhaps as a deterrent to people skipping over what they thought was a fine game function.

Expansion packs have been around for ages, nobody complains about them. Should games just be withheld for years, then released on 6 DVDs with 200 different maps just because any and all content related to a game should be included for free, and on launch day?

And here's a thought...paying for cheats might serve as a *deterrent* to cheating...like the horse armor :-) And honestly, unlocking a cheat has never resulted in me suddenly cheating away. That sucks the fun out of the game to begin with. Let the 12 year olds cheat (I don't think I ever played Doom *without* cheating). Now that I'm older, the challenge is where it's at.

I personally love microtransactions. If you can't do the math to realize the value of the credits relative to actual dollars, and then control your spending, that's your problem. If you're pissed that developers have different ideas about how games should work, or if you cry conspiracy every time a new level or map is released that "should" have been in the game in the first place, then boo-hoo.

If you don't like it, don't use it. As simple as that.

I think I am at a loss as to what this article is even about. So your upset that people who want to pay for it...can get things unlocked. Why is this wrong? Its the same as having cheat codes. I know a lot of people who use cheat codes...they just found a way to monetize. Those stupid capitalists wanting to make money.

They have been doing this for ages by adding expansion packs to games. I don't see why this is any different than it always has been. I don't feel that these should go away at all. Its fair that they do this.

You lost me at the part where you say it SHOULD be in the game. Why SHOULD it be there already? Why do you feel that they owe you anything?

They are a gaming company that wants to make money. There are people out there dumb enough to pay for these things...then let them pay.

I do believe that the Katamari game for 360 had some content on the disc that could only be unlocked by "buying" it off Live.

Why does everyone assume this is about cheats?

It sounds like a revenue stream just waiting.

How about in-game consumables?

Instead of ammo reloads being found in the game, just purchase them at the login screen for a mere dollar each.

Damn, I'd better get designing.

I truly enjoy the debate guys, thanks for replying, good or bad.

Some people have left comments that further exemplify what is wrong with microtransactions, such as the Halo 3 levels debacle, and let's not forget the Lumines Live bullshit where you bought the game for 1200 points and half of it was locked! LOCKED! Seriously there are a lot of examples where the developers SHOULD HAVE included certain features of the game, but instead opted to charge you for it at a later date. Lumines is a great example I should have included with the original article.

I think this model of ingame transactions, was adopted by necessity and gradual progress. Its not the end of the world, if you don't value game items.

Games which don't appeal to gamers, won't sell at all(like E.T.).

1.Instead of single fixed revenue stream from bought disks, they have a flexible revenue stream: it don't stop just at disk purchase, it will as long as there is interest in the game.

2.Game price could be reduced or subsidized by such transactions(like most asian MMORPGs).

3.Purchases are voluntary: the ingame currency/items/unlocks are not 'real' enough to spend 'real' money by rational people, it a decision of game fan(who does 'need' the item).

A basic game is still possible, even if developers heavily encourage spending.

4.Advanced methods of payment and new forms of gaining advantages ingame are not appealing to purists because they

expect canonical 'gaming experience': this is expected, games which 'sell out' their quality content would have less interest long-term interest from the gamers(if the free content doesn't make up for).

In principle pay-to-play loses subscribers and paying members when confronted with single-purchase system of higher quality content(newspaper subscription vs book,the first gives new content of questionable quality, the second has fixed content ).

5.Such design promotes competition and boosts value of achievement:its now equalized to 'real world value' , however small.

In a normal game gaining more ingame advantages is restricted to the game world.

6.from 5. it leads that people could earn money from the game by using black market tactics to gather ingame currency and sell it cheaper then official channels, if they exist.(selling items from MMORPGs by firms employing low-wage workers in computer farms is a depressing example of virtual economy meeting real world)

I can write a lengthy post repeating what most people already said....

If you are stupid enough to pay for something you already bought you deserve microtransations

(paying for unlocks/upgrades)

its BAD ENOUGH games are patched almost less then a week after shipping.

what i want to know is where do publishers get off putting out games that are glitched and buggedd to high heaven and then whhen the game is finally finished and done with being patched(that doesnt mean there are no glitches though)

you can find it in your 9.99 bin at your local nutbuster video

Um, the Horse armor was entirely cosmetic and did nothing to actually armor the horse.

And if you dont want it, dont buy it. It's not required.

Idiot.

Stop bitchin' Start payin'. You said it yourself, this is a Game INDUSTRY. Wake up and smell the microtransactions.

From this day forth your industry has changed.

There will be a standard edition which includes nothing, not even the ability to game for unlockables.

There will be a silver edition which includes 1 free micro-unlockable, and/or the ability to game for unlockable.

There will be a gold edition which includes all unlockable, and/or micro-credits for unlockables.

This is the new face of Gaming. Stop bitchin' and enojy the glut of developers able to create new content for your "nex-gen" system because of the micro-economy.

That is all.

Are you retarded? None of these are microtransactions, they're just plain-jane exploitation and greed.

Don't consign REAL microtransactions to the dustbin because you don't understand what they are and use the term improperly. You are describing costs more than a VISA / Mastercard transaction fee, so they are NOT micro. Do you consider a $1 candybar a "micro" transaction? No. It is a transaction, and smaller than the ones you describe.

A REAL microtransaction, and a very useful one, would be used in a direct payment model for musicians, where you pay musicians directly (not iTunes, not RIAA, not a label, but the musician themself) a couple cents, say $.05, for a song. THAT is a microtransaction.

Charging more for game features may be bullshit, it may be exploitative, it may be everything else you said it is, but it is NOT a microtransaction.

You see, even in our games the "rich" people have the advantage over the "normal" people. But those normal people have the better experience about the game. They play it the right way :) anyway; ridiculous way of cheating!

EA, please stop this .. would ya?

sry for the poor english

I think you're forgetting EA's number one money-maker in the microtransaction department: Rock Band. That game is a slow, steady draw on my bank account. But, I buy the additional content because it's fun, and it adds to my game experience, and the induvidual songs are pretty cheap. But, I fall prey to the inability that many consumers have to multiply a couple bucks by the fifty or so DLC songs.

No one has forced me to buy anything, ("if you don't like it don't buy it"), but it still seems a bit underhanded. I think a lot of gamers are to a point where $60 all at once isn't worth it for a game sometimes, so they get you with these little purchases here and there.

I think XBL DLC should be modeled more after Valve's Steam, where they incrementally release great stuff at a reasonable price (and there's no monthly fee just to connect!). Valve does it this way so that they can release awesome (bits of) games more often. EA seems to use DLC to rape your wallet.

Thanks smakus, I agree with most of your points. Not sure these are really problems with microtransactions, but the point is better made for some 'Downloadable Content'.

"We Love Katamari" is a great example of the scumbag money grubbing mentality - having to pay to unlock content that is already on the disk, not even getting downloaded! Lumines is another one, you are right on with that. Just wait until EA starts charging for each roster update when a trade is made, or even for patches to make the crapware they shovel out playable ...

Not all DLC fits this bill, but the 'buy a better weapon because you can't compete' approach really disgusts me; nearly as much as the inherent lie in selling a game and then demanding more money for the rest of it. At least the wiiware games throw a notice up when they plan to squeeze you dry to get a full game experience; how about a warning on XBLA downloads and x360 discs?

And you know you are right when the retardotrolls come out with their oh so persuasive and well reasoned arguments. Thanks to neuroelectronic, thatsgreat, dude, Dan Zuccarelli and Jizzy for proving they are stupid consumers - exactly the kind of gamer the megacorpoconglomerate producers love! Whats that? I hear a limited gold special legendary edition of Halo 3.0001, complete with pose-able Master Chief doll is coming out in a month, pre-order now for only $130! Oh wait, I meant Master Chief limited edition Action Figure ... with multiple wardrobes available for purchase separately. You fucking douche-nozzles, why don't you go teabag each other.

Your problem is not with 'microtransactions'. Your problem is with companies charging you for content you believe should be free or part of the initial upfront cost. That's fine. But say that and don't blame 'microtransactions'. Blame the companies for this business model. If you don't like it the answer is simple - don't buy it.

It's your own goddamn fault for SUPPORTING THE SYSTEM by buying the 360 console and games for it.

I have no sympathy for you pretards

whatever Aaron. I don't even have a game system. The obvious conclusion is that companies can charge what ever they want for whatever they want. Even a douchefag like you can see that.

i'm curious why all these people are fighting to be charged...would you have preferred that the sniper level (all ghillied up) in COD4 have been pay-to-play?

would you have liked that you only started out with pistols, but with the option to purchase rifles for multiplayer?

what sort of republican pro-capitalistic nonsense are you "gamers" spouting...seriously, do you want $30 added to your $60 game, just to attain what the frat gamers can buy with daddies credit card?

(http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-top-7-stereotypical-gamers-we-hate/a-2008032410612871091)

i don't, quit being fools and fight the imposition of gaming...it's supposed to be fun, not a mini-game of economics.

theres a difference between an EXPANSION and a SINGLE LEVEL purchase. The Oblivion Expansion, being a LARGE portion of new content and quests deserves to be paid for, the horse armor thing may not be that terrible at all, i agree, maybe that's what devs wanted, BUT, he's talking about the ridiculousness that will/is following this pay-for-fix.

i ask again: why are you continuing to support this extortion, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GAMERS.

I LOVE the add on packs.

Instead of "making 15 maps then putting 12 in the game and selling 3 extra" what it really does is the following:

Keeps the company adding to good games after the fact (i.e. Halo 3 levels).

Keeps the stuff not everyone wants in a game in the game only for those who give a care (i.e. Horse Barding).

Keeps the good games continually getting an investment after the release. Games are heavily tool based endeavors. How much time to spend generating content using these tools is a guesstimate of what can be done by a release date.

Once a release happens, stuff like levels, etc, can be made without worries the rest of the game will change. If a game is selling, and making money, this justifies the salaries of the level designers and other employees who then can make more content on the already developed platform. THIS IS AWESOME. Who cares if a game like Cars or Two Worlds produces or doesn't produce extra content, but the fact Oblivion does, and I don't have to go to a store to get it, and it will add to an already great game...that's great.

It means really good games get more expensive, in a piecemeal way that only those who wish to buy it pay for. It means you pay more for games *you really like*. Think about that. You pay more for stuff you like, and less for stuff you don't.

Half the time it isn't even the developers (except for EA) it is mostly Microsoft making companies like Infinity Ward and Bungie to charge for the money to go straight in their pockets.

Amen.

I guess this whole conversation, hinging on the argument of what exactly is fair, and what gullible really means shows that gaming truly has gone mainstream.

On one hand, this could be seen as any other market where, in order to unify development costs, the premium version of a product is developed and various versions are created by hacking away at it. But when is this going too far? What about buying an RPG with only one playable class, the others are unlocked via micro transaction or buying a premium version? Or what about a shooter with only one or two weapons? And these versions cost the same or more than the purchase price of previous games not based on this model.

But for others, they feel cheated because it’s on the disk, they paid for it in the purchase price as far as they are concerned. Or if it is a bug fix, that the developer/publisher never has to admit fault, just release the fix labeled as an addon and charge for it. But then, what was really the intention? What that pet peeve really a bug? What about games that had content cut, the publisher never acknowledged it, but all the bits and pieces were left sitting around? (think something like Hot Coffee)

Who is right is not at all clear cut, there is no real moral stand here. It is simply the publishers, and console maker saying ‘what can we get away with?" and consumers answering. There will be a price escalation, competition between different consoles will become more fierce with micro transactions being a central issue, the bloated will die off, and the cycle will begin anew. With PCs, the cycle centered around hardware. With consoles, it looks like it will be micro transactions.

For single player games, I really don’t care all that much as long as the effects are isolated to the individual gamer. Gaming is about fun right? As long as it stays isolated to the individual gamer, I don’t care. If someone wants to donate to the ‘senior executive yacht fund’, fine. The problem is that this really isn’t the case. There are games out now where a player needs to buy the ‘extras’ for achievements points, or to otherwise ‘complete’ the game. I fear those quick to open their wallets, will increase the cost of playing single player games as a result

Multiplayer is a different story all together. Is it really fair for someone who has spent months honing their skill, learning the game, and competing to be beaten by someone who has barely played the game, but paid to get some sort of ‘god mode’? Are you fine with that totally annoying n00b being an unstoppable PKing machine because he paid for the power leveling, and items? Should professional athletes be allowed to use ‘performance enhancing drugs’? Does the RIAA deserve to win all their cases because they have more money?

Ultimately, the market will decide, but it will be a slow process, and be indiscriminate, probably destroying an entire market segment.

It’s not just developers to blame though. We have known for years that EA is not exactly a shining example of fairness and morality, yet gamers are still eager to open up their wallets for them. Still it isn’t fair to lay all the blame at EA’s feet. Consider Epic’s desire to release free content, but the resistance of Microsoft to allow it. They profit by being the middle man in all this. In the past on the PC, it was a more direct route. Here, the cost and risk are shared via the market place system so it is no longer as simply as saying ‘I won’t buy it’.

getting nickel and dimed sucks. and microtransactions the EA way (or even the oblivion way... pffft, that kinda stuff is free on most pc titles) deserves to be water boarded. vote with your dollars until it's dead. i have not, nor will i ever buy games that will try to nickel and dime me. in the same spirit, i'm still an mmorpg virgin and i'm determined to stay that way. subscription?! pffft.

Totally see your point as to taking away from the game, but then as someone who is linked to video game tournaments with cash on the line, I think this would be an interesting weakness to exploit. Some one buys up all the tools, skills, etc and comes to a tournament only to get wrecked by a guy who earned all the same things... that can teach em a thing or two.

"For example: During creation of a halo 3 type game if they've created 15 levels that can be included in the game, but intentionally only include 12 in the released version, only to put up the extra 3 maps at a later date"

and then those maps will be free at a later date (today). most developers dont even lower the cost, hell bungie dropped it to free... give some credit where its due.

another thing i didnt see mentioned is that the developers dont determine the pricing, micro$oft does

Oblivion's Horse Armor is, ironically, a dead horse, and a misunderstood one at that. Yes, horses could die in Oblivion, but no, it wasn't a big problem and no, the downloadable content wasn't some kind of necessary hotfix. It was a low-risk test of the uncharted DLC waters by Bethesda, and that's all. No harm no foul, unless you saw right past the hours and hours of other gameplay in Oblivion, and spent all your time staring, unsatisfied, at the bare sides of the several available horse models.

The later micro-expansions to Oblivion were much better values, but undoubtedly also took more investment from Bethesda. I have no problem whatsoever paying small amounts of money for incremental improvements - a new series of quests or a few new levels. And if the improvements don't appeal to me, or I don't think they're worth the cash, I let the company know by not buying them. That's easy.

Where it gets tricky are with micro-improvements that imbalance a multiplayer environment. When certain abilities are exclusively for sale, you split the multiplayer community on the basis of real-world investment. Even cash-only levels can limit a budget-minded player's server options. A player shouldn't have to keep up with the virtual Joneses to continue having fun with something they've already paid for.

Making the same improvements available via in-game unlock is a compromise solution. Many of the items in GunBound, for example, are like this - available for purchase with cash or with in-game currency earned through play. However, pay-for-unlocks, whether single or multiplayer, present a conflict of interest between developer and player. The player has paid money to have as much fun as possible with the game, while the developer now has motivation to make parts of the game so frustrating or mind-numbingly grindy that players break down and buy the unlocks instead.

In short (haha), the only DLC that comes out looking harmless is significant, new, single player content that I can opt-out of - like the Oblivion DLCs. Pretty much every other kind of pay-for micro-content presents some kind of potential threat to the enjoyment of the game.

Microsoft loves you to pay for microtransactions. Not only do they get you up front for the raping, but then get you from behind because your hard drive fills up. Then you have to buy a 20GB for $100. suckers!

Of course they knew from the start that console gamers are more susceptable to this kind of "microtransactional raping". They did it to you when you bought the console. They sell it to you cheap just to get you in the door, then they rape you for another $10 per game, plus the raping on severely overpriced peripherals ($100 for wireless? lmao)

it's totally awesome how team fortress 2 for pc releases new maps for free. suck it, consolefags.

This is awful, i hate EA so much

What about episodic games like (the new) Sam and Max. They charge a 'reasonable' amount for the first part in their game, then allow you to continue or not, at your pleasure... those would be considered microtransactions, but you are fully aware of what you are getting into... That seems like the 'correct' way to do them.

I disagree with the comment about BF:BC, I think EA and Dice did a good job on balancing weapons to where even when you had them all you still saw alot of times players would still use "stock" weapons. I don't think it give anyone a huge advantage but forces people that don't buy to master weapons.

At the same time, in a game like that, it would be nice if you could buy weapons OR unlock them at some point down the road, weather its like BF2 style or longer so you can get them still, just take forever.

In a post earlier it says : stop bitching because developers get to charge WHAT THEY WANT for patches (paraphrased and caps not in original). Unfortunately developpers can't charge what they want for a 'microtransaction' as shown by Unreal 2 which has some extra content which is free on the PC. Now it was supposed to be free for the 360 as well until Microsoft said it can't be free! You gota charge something and make us more than 5$/month with xbox live ripping off our customers. (thats another topic though)

But some things, like new maps for Call of Duty 4 and the Shivery Isles and Knights of the Nine expansions for Oblivion I would be more than willing to pay for.

I completely agree with this post.

what publishers like ea are doing is bullshit.

i understand that after a game comes out they keep developing things and aren't just going to give it away for free, this is the same concept as an expansion pack. the problem occurs when developers complete a game, a normal length no extra-content game, and then remove parts for us to pay more for later.

wouldn't you be pissed off if you bought a car and got it home just to realize you have to pay for a download just use the radio?

seriously what is that $60 for if i still have to pay for a bunch of shit seperately? am i just paying for the green plastic box, the real gaming experience costs extra?

it's bullshit.

Think of it as an idiot tax for playing consols.

Enjoy your fee's suckers

PC > Consol

This kind of reminds me of Hellgate:London where you have those that just bought the game with no subscription, and those that bought the game with a subscription...

And me uninstalling the game and kicking myself for buying the game =?

Wow i hadent thought of it like that, but you really have a point.

ya i agree, this is dumb... i like what you wrote in the end

"And they wonder why piracy exists..."

haha

Wow lotsa comments here.

this is a HUGE problem in rok n roll fantasy games

they make note charts for say 100 songs, but then they only put in like TWENTY FREAKIN FIVE and tell you to buy the rest for TWO FREAKIN DOLLARS a pop!

ITS OUTRAGEOUS!

i mean is the $150 not enough for rock band???

do i REALLY need to pay you guys like another TWO HUNDRED to get all the songs????

i mean, GET REAL!!!!!

I disagree with your statement of who started this trend. The method of offering differed versions/add ins probably started with Microsoft. Its operating system allows users to install additional programs for a tiny fee compared to the operating systems cost. This is just another tier in capitalism and marketing.

Whine whine whine, piss piss piss, moan moan moan.

Microtransactions do have a lot of problems with them, it's true. And they need to be dealt with in a way that doesn't gimp players, that's true. But with your cursing, whining, and overall pleading to the audience, you sounded like a petulant child.

In short, your post weakened the overall arguments for your position. Please come and report again when you can make a logical argument that doesn't sound like it's coming from a whiny teenager.

The difference between an expansion pack and microtransactions, for those that can't see the difference, is that an expansion pack adds a considerable amount of content to a game, like another 5-10 hours of play, while a microtransaction is something small, like a single song on guitar hero or rock band.

Use a LARGER font on your web site... please.

Learn how to use your browser... please.

hint: hold CTRL and scroll UP on your mouse wheel.

lol noobs

the worst part.. if you try to sell your system later, that stuff you got , you can't sell or get money back on.

So that oblivion expansion that costs 2400 microsoft points or 30 bucks , you can either go out and buy it or download it.

But if you ever get rid of the system , most people do to upgrade eventually, that downloaded expansion is worth nothing where the one on cd is worth something.

This is what is commonly known in ecnomists circles as price discrimination. Getting each consumer to pay the maximum price they are willing to pay. It is the same concept behind first class airline tickets, and student and senior citizens "discounts" for various services including public transport and sporting events. It is a great shame to see it spread to the gaming industry.