Feature Article

Microtransactions Are a Solution to a Problem That Shouldn't Exist

Editorial: More money, more problems.

How much are you willing to pay for a virtual item? For years, time was the only thing that I needed to invest once I bought a game, so the value of unlockable items was based on how many hours I was willing to kill. I spent weeks unlocking every character in Marvel vs. Capcom 2, even longer to get those last cheats in GoldenEye 007, and I never could quite earn everything that F-Zero GX had to offer. That game was hard! Some of my fondest gaming memories come from finally achieving the unachievable. However, a growing trend has turned this simple practice into one that feels exploitative. Unlockables have become a grind, and the microtransactions that now provide a shortcut to those precious objects only highlights how monetization can taint even the best things.

Electronic Arts has implemented microtransactions in Battlefield 4 for those who would rather shell out a couple of dollars here and there to get every item than mess with the randomness that the real system is built around. On the surface, this seems like a handy feature for those who want to enjoy Battlefield 4 but don't have the free time to get all the goodies. And I do relate to that mindset. As an adult with a full-time job, a wife, and a dog, I can no longer spend endless hours in front of my television trying to master a game's intricacies. So giving people with more money than time a leg up in their digital escapades seems downright generous. Electronic Arts is doing us a favor, right?

Well, not really. You see, Electronic Arts has solved a problem that it has created. Keeping unlocks behind a wall--be it one you hurdle by spending money or investing time makes no difference--is a decision that the publisher made. And if it realized that a segment of its audience had no interest in going through the hoops the developers constructed, it could have doled out said items in a way that didn't require you to spend even more money on a game you had already purchased. By increasing the rewards you earn at the end of every match, or making more weapons available from the onset, EA would have cut down on the time you needed to spend to see everything. So giving us the option to spend money to avoid a time sink doesn't seem like a happy, alternate method at all, but merely another way to nickel-and-dime its customers.

Microtransactions now provide a shortcut to those precious objects and highlight how monetization can taint even the best things.

In games where I spent hours trying to unlock everything that wasn't available from the beginning, I had to develop my skills to reach those heights. F-Zero GX required complete mastery to overcome the conniving racers who populated later tracks, GoldenEye forced me to plan in-depth strategies to shave seconds off my time, and Marvel vs. Capcom 2 urged me to learn the subtleties of every one of its 56 characters. The act of playing offered an intangible reward, one in which I grew so proficient at the challenges that it didn't even matter what waited for me on the other side. These unlockables didn't require me to grind levels for hours on end, or perform the same feats ad nauseam. Rather, unlockables were doled out based on my skill level--not my time commitment--which made the process more immediately satisfying.

This is a marked change from how unlockables are often handled now. For those who aren't aware, here's a brief rundown on how you earn new gear in Battlefield 4. You gain levels by completing matches, which earns you weapons and attachments. Well, kind of. You only get new weapons based on the class of gun you're using. So, being proficient with a shotgun gets you a new shotgun. Pretty logical. Only it's never that easy. If you earn, say, a sniper scope for one rifle, you can't just use it on another rifle you unlock later. No, you have to unlock every attachment for each individual weapon, which takes hours upon hours of hard dedication.

That doesn't sound too bad if you enjoy Battlefield 4, but there's a breaking point for everyone. How many dozens of hours are you willing to put in to not only unlock, but fully equip, a weapon you have your eye on? How many times can you stand unlocking the same laser sight and heavy barrel as you work your way up the ladder of assault rifles? Plus, you earn battle packs as well. These are what EA now lets you purchase, and they add randomness to an already overwhelming unlock structure. You never know what these packs will contain, so you spend many more hours trying to get everything.

Of course, EA offered a way around this months ago. They let you spend $50 on "buy-everything" DLC, which doesn't actually fix the problem. But there is a better way to handle rewards already out there. Call of Duty: Black Ops introduced a currency system known as CODPoints. As the name implies, you earn points for hearing the call, but what makes this system work is the freedom it gives to intrepid players. Instead of shuttling you down prescribed unlock trees like Battlefield, Call of Duty lets you choose the weapons and attachments that you want to use. It reduces the grinding element that has become so prevalent. By giving you full control over what you earn, you're not forced to contend with agonizing randomization, or suffer through underpowered weapons until you get the one you want. It's a great solution that empowers players without forcing them to invest countless hours to unlock what they want or cough up extra cash to circumvent the system.

How many dozens of hours are you willing to put in to not only unlock, but fully equip, a weapon you have your eye on?

And it's not like Battlefield 4 is alone in how its unlock system functions. In Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare, you can either endlessly play matches or just shell out a couple of bucks to skip over the monotony. The same is true in Forza Motorsport 5. So strong was the outrage for the microtransactions in Turn 10's racer that the developers changed how rewards are doled out so people don't feel as though they're being taken advantage of.

NBA 2K14 was one of my favorite games from last year, but the manner in which you build your created character reeks of exploitation. It takes so long to even earn a pair of new shoes--let alone boost your attributes--that your best options are to either pay the bounty or move on to another mode. Improving your player takes too much time to make it worthwhile for anyone but the most diehard. And when Take Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick says, "when we design our virtual currency packs, we do it in a way that will make consumers happier, not sadder that they are engaged with our games," it worries me that NBA 2K will continue its tradition of making people grind to upgrade their players instead of developing a smoother unlock system.

I don't want to demean the act of playing modern games with an emphasis on unlockable content. There is inherent joy in striving for excellence in all of these games, even if there weren't any bonuses bestowed upon the most dedicated. Rather, the problem is that developers design games in such a way that they demand hours upon hours of the same basic actions to see everything there is. It's such a huge time commitment that it becomes tiring moving up the ladder. The grind that goes with leveling up becomes the norm, so much so that I completely understand why someone would spend money to escape that void. This is especially true if you buy, say, Battlefield 4 after your friends have already sunk hours into it. Do you really want to play with a bunch of strangers to achieve the same rank as your buddies? Or would you rather just bypass that dance so you can have fun with the people you want to play with? It seems like an obvious decision, and one that could be avoided completely if the developers so choose.

There's a middle ground between the grind necessary to unlock items in many games and the money you must pay to skip that process. If the developers realize that people don't have the time or patience to unlock the things they want, then there should be a less punitive way to access that content than we currently have. I understand that companies aren't going to turn up their noses at an alternate revenue stream, but at some point, their customers must take priority over their bottom line. We love unlockables. Rewards can add lasting appeal to a game, give you something to strive for long after you've seen the ending credits roll. But companies shouldn't take advantage of our obsession with earning all of those bonus goodies. Making it an option to pay more money doesn't solve any problem; it just highlights one. Namely, that your unlock system is so much of a grind people are willing to pay money to avoid playing the game.

Written By

Want the latest news about Battlefield 4?

Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4

Discussion

626 comments
2torman
2torman

Micro transactions are an extremely turbulent issue. Gaming companies are adding this feature to games with little consideration to the views of the consumer. This is why I am conducting research in the subject in order to create a deeper understanding of the gamers opinions on this matter.  


https://plymouthbusiness.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9NsjPmwiamTxfo1

Please help shed a light on this problem and contribute to improving this issue

jark888
jark888

Great article with insightful point at the end. GS needs more of these gamer concerned topics, and less of BS repetitive nonsense. By the way, I personally hardly support microtransaction.

Stepn2myworld
Stepn2myworld

My personal experience with this type of grinding was in NBA 2K14. The My Player is so devoid of NBA talent at the beginning of the game that I'm surprised he is able to warm a seat on an NBA bench, let alone get into the starting lineup (Steam/PC). If I was playing on the Xbox 360/PS3, I would have paid for VC just to upgrade the My Player into 2nd round draft pick instead of the high school walk-on I created. Fortunately, I was on PC and the a program called the cheat engine allowed hacking of skill points. Problem solved and gaming experience vastly improved. It is clear that game was designed to push those playing My Player into a microtransaction purchase.

drillkill
drillkill

i dnt agree with micro transactions they are complete rip off like ive always said never buy a game thats has already season pass annouced and released before the game this included cod who rehash map designs . and yes cod players all the maps u buy a rehashed frm cal of duty 2 and so on just look atthe map layout and overlay it with the old call of dutys maps

edub272
edub272

Micro-transactions are like paying for cheat codes. I remember when I could press left, right, left, right, up, down, up, down, square, circle, square. circle or something like that to get that awesome gun I haven't unlocked yet... but no, now I gotta pay for it.

kystormchaser
kystormchaser

Why don't they just raise the price of games to $80 and eliminate the DLC?  The price point on new games hasn't changed for over a decade, if not longer. IIRC a new title on the original PS1 was $60 too. Charge the extra to everyone, raise your profit margin and eliminate the DLC/microtransactions. MLB The Show and 2k14 could make your MyPlayer/RTTS characters start as reasonably talented professionals instead of hamfisted idiots and BF4 could give you a rifle and shotgun that would do something more than rest beside your dead body.

My GUESS though is that the microtransactions and DLC are more profitable. If a few users spend 60 dollars on ALL content and the majority spend 10 or 20 you are already making more money, not to mention the drop in initial sales due to the higher price point.

I don't really mind the current system too much though. Gaming is my primary hobby and I spend quite a bit of time in it despite the job/wife/dog so I get significantly more than $60 in value out of my games (especially when you compare it to other forms of entertainment) 

Stuff just costs money and really despite some frustrating bugs the experiences are usually pretty darn good. Sorry if that makes me a corporate sucker.

blueboxdoctor
blueboxdoctor

I'm OK with being able to pay for items in BF.  I don't do it because I think it's kind of stupid to not want to just get good at a game (though, it makes sense if you have been playing on a console then switch to PC and have to start over but just want your items back).  I never felt at a disadvantage in BF because of this, I just got good at the items I liked to use.  Plus, I can't blame them if people are willing to buy the items instead of unlocking them.  But there should always be the option to unlock items through playing the game so microtransactions are not forced on the player (especially if it's for a $60 game). 

trackles
trackles

Battlepacks instead of unlocks was the worst idea ever, if I ever meet the guy who implemented them I will punch him in the face.

MirkoS77
MirkoS77

All these MTs and DLC practices make me do is await the GotY edition.

DoomglooM
DoomglooM

I ain't playing no more games

robotopbuddy
robotopbuddy moderator moderator

Tbh, for me the very concept of a levelling system that gives you any advantage, no matter how slight, in a multiplayer game is a flawed one. It quite literally further unevens the playing field for newer inexperienced players and those that play a ton, have everything unlocked, and know what they're doing...even when you ignore skill (which is a fair difference in a multiplayer game imo - pretty much the only fair difference that doesn't come down to free player choice at that), it adds a further separation between new inexperienced players that buy said advantages and those that refuse to and instead try to grind their way up (and 'limiting yourself' is not a valid argument against this due to money being involved - not everyone has the money to waste on such things, so it's not always a choice). Making it grind-heavy and then adding micro-transactions to remedy the grind-heavy issue that was added by design just reeks of exploitation and greed though.


Frankly, my view is that game progression should be built around the idea that gamers will never even consider buying such things - if it is necessary to buy them to avoid progression feeling like nothing more than a grind then the progression system is bad, simple as that. Adding in ways to level faster after that is fair enough, at least outside of multiplayer pvp games where it impacts the balance (but frankly, I don't believe multiplayer should be affected by factors like levels to begin with), but it should be an after-thought rather than being ingrained into the development process - at best it limits creativity (creative ways to separate people from their money really doesn't count either) and encourages bad design decisions.


I've even reached a point where when considering buying a game I look into all the DLC I would possibly consider buying and their prices, whether or not a multiplayer game has pay-to-get-ahead type micro-transactions, and what any future DLC is likely to cost me. This means that personally, I'll often choose not to purchase games (or sometimes simply wait until they're on a hefty price reduction deal or are repackaged with a more suitable cost - though the very inclusion of lots of DLC has a tendency to make me want to pay less than usual, knowing they'll probably be more in the future) because such things are included. I'll normally get to play the better games plagued by such things at some point regardless, either at a much lower price than usual or for free by playing a friend's copy or something.


...but let's be honest - stopping this is probably little more than a pipe dream in the end, too many people seem all too happy to throw money away to skip chunks of games that they bought or otherwise spend a small fortune on a game - and even more are complacent with the ways things are even if they're not particularly happy with them. Tbh, there's worse cases than BF4 too though, some really horrible cases have things like regular pay-walls blocking progression and regularly limited edition uber-rare and/or powerful stuff pay for a chance to get it, pay more for more chances - it worries me that such games can even get away with such things, as they're incredibly blatant cash grabs and/or essentially hidden charges.

maanmkd
maanmkd

its just stupid. this whole micro transaction thing. gamers are being screwed over because a company wants more money. and their games is as repetitive as the last one. there isnt any creativity. if the gaming industry goes down this path it might kill itself 

quickshooterMk2
quickshooterMk2

also i saw a very insightful post from raptr 2 weeks ago, i'll copy paste it: 


"Just felt like sharing this, I was going through a Dark Souls forum site and a guy was willing to pay nearly fourty dollars for sunlight metals because he wasn't getting summoned and despite people trying to help him out with advice, he turns around and acts like an *** and says he would rather spend the money. This is why microtransactions exists sadly in games, people like this.


but in reality that guy was a jackoff, sunbros farm their sunlight medals with pride and honor 

but rich people like microtransactions...

quickshooterMk2
quickshooterMk2

well this one's easy, don't buy EA/ubisoft/activision branded games 


microtransactions is the scum of gaming, worse then day-1 DLC 


i've never bought an EA title game in years and i'm quite happy with it 

i still play battlefield bad company 2 and i feel satisfied. 

RossRichard
RossRichard

The truly disgusting thing about this kind of practice is that for every gamer that speaks against it, at least ten people accuse that gamer of being entitled.

Darknight765
Darknight765

Boycott the games that use them and it goes away. Everyone took a stand against MS, why not take a stand against EA?

arrrrghbyter
arrrrghbyter

A sad state of affairs indeed. Paying to skip the very thing you have just bought seems to stupid to even think about. I much agree with the article on getting shit for show-of-skill.

crognalsen
crognalsen

I've seen a lot of people defend micro transactions to death.  Most will tell me that's what people want and that it gives people more freedom of choice.  For instance if I want to skip part of the game I should be able to pay to do it.  If I want an item in game I should be able to pay real money and get it instead of actually playing the game.  Then there are cosmetic items which don't effect gameplay, but are for purchase in game.


The main purpose of video games for me was to escape for a while and not be infected by the societies desire to make everything about money.  Micro transactions make everything about money in game.  I can live with a price increase on games, but leave (real) money out of games when you are playing IMO. 


To me it's exactly what the developer said.  Companies are analyzing us and trying to figure out how to milk us for all were worth and the players don't care about it.


I guess I shouldn't be surprised as nickel and diming people seems to be a standard in every industry these days.

High-Res
High-Res

Electronic Arts & their Battlefield Model:

So, I make a decent living, my primary gaming circle consists of myself, my 75 year old father in law and my 13 & 10 year old. We are all what you would consider hardcore gamers and our favorite thing in the world is to play co-op together. 


So we are totally excited about Battlefield 3 back when it was releasing. I purchase 4 copies.

2 Basic copies

2 that included special maps (Back to Karkhan?)

Total: $259.16 

So after a few days (or weeks) and the Servers actually start to work and we actually start to squad up and play together, We notice that when ever the game switches Maps the 2 players who do not own the "Karkam" version keep getting kicked out of the squad and disconnected from the game.

So Now I have to purchase 2 copies of the digital Map. Let's say it was $14.99 but I actually think it may have been Premium Only....so that was an additional $120.00


Total invested at launch: $388.76


So, for supporting the title at Launch I spent give or take $400.00....If I just waited 6 months the game dropped to $39.99...If I waited one year, The Complete version of the game that included EVERYTHING PREMIUM AND ALL was $39.99...so just by waiting I could have spent $160.00 and had everything the game had to offer...but because I supported them at Launch it cost me $400.00 bucks.


So what Have I learned? Patience, like I have said before, the gaming consumer is the most educated consumer in the world. I know longer by EA games until they are price dropped and re-released as Game Of The Year Editions, or Complete Editions and they are $39.99 to $29.99


There are SO Many awesome games made these days. It isn't going to take long for the rest of the Gamer Consumers to start doing what I am doing and Ultimately this greed from the Publisher's is going to back fire on them.

High-Res
High-Res

Another example of suck:


Minecraft, I buy a skin pack. Ok....so now unless everyone I play with buys the same skin pack they can't enter my game. Why? Why can't they just enter and see the default skins and since I own the Fantasy Skins pack, My stuff looks one way and theirs looks a bit different?


No, it completely denies you from joining your friends game i.e. making you purchase it as well to play together!

High-Res
High-Res

Another example of Micro Transactions that hurt the product itself. Let's look at Grand Theft Auto V Online. This by all reasoning, should be the most fun, addictive, community based online game play on the market today. BUT...It's not. It's boring, It's dull...it's NOT FUN!


Why? How can this giant virtual play ground be so boring and dull? This makes absolutely no sense....oh but wait!


They have engineered it in a way to sell In Game Money for Real money! So, Instead of just having really fun activities, like say joining a server in that has 2 Large Posse's fighting over the city, who ever controls or holds territory gets a ton of money...



Well there is nothing fun in the game like that because they want you to have to "Work" for money so you are more likely to BUY money....thus making the game suck. I firmly believe if GTA wasn't trying to sell in game money for real money the online play and experience and all that encompasses would be a thousand times more successful.


I just remember my buddies always busting my chops when it first went online because I was so broke. Well, I was, because I was constantly goofing around, trying to have fun and dying and that SUCKED up all my money in the game! Yes, having fun, made me go broke. Meanwhile they were totally rich but they wouldn't have any fun! Just grind missions and bank and avoid any of the open world goofiness.

connanboy
connanboy

You pay to play the game and then you pay again to skip the game. Genius.

decebal
decebal

Very good article Tom.

Loch324
Loch324

I remember unlocking every super smash bros character because I could. Trudging for hours through tougher and tougher modes in Viewtiful Joe and Devil May Cry to get characters like Alistar and Vergil. Getting Altair's Armour in Assassin's Creed II, because the developers wanted to give me something more than just the game. A lot of times those little secrets were what made the endgame so much more exciting. Now all i get for my hours of gaming is a trophy/achievement that says, good job! you did it! Like a 4th grade teacher putting a gold star on an assignment. Video-games are turning into a business and devs who make games for fun are losing because of it. Soon it will just be another business that caters to people who don't know any better. Who know nothing of what gaming used to be about, fun. 

SambaLele
SambaLele

Tom, it's the other way around.


Microtransactions are not the solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.


They are a solution to a problem made for that very purpose.


The slow grinding for obtaining items and achievements are meant to stimulate most people to prefer spending money rather than time... it's not that the games' mechanics are not well formulated or bad, it's just that now devs make them with the focus on how they can profit more with the very same game mechanics they already sold you to begin with...


This all began with people accepting DLC.


The time and money spent on making DLC could very well be directed towards new games, be it sequels or new IPs, with an added time and budget of development, which would also result in a greater product price when sold.



But we accepted a bad standard ithat leaded to the scenario of day 1 DLC, which are already counted in the original game's budget and develpment time, but sold apart. Sometimes, it's even included in the game's disk, but only unlocked once you pay again for that same content. Publishers are to blame, but not only them, but us consumers as well, for buying into this.

julianboxe
julianboxe

Although i agree that BF4 system is kind of random and takes WAY to long to get, i dont see a major problem with it beacause most unlocks won't make u ubber than other players, just allow you a different play style.

malachim1
malachim1

The unlock able is part of the reason that I play. Buying a pack is like taking away my reason to play. What bothers me more is games that launch with dlc tray to be sold. Noy devs can get away with making a full game and selling it piece by piece. Sent from mobile

bernard978
bernard978

A solution perhaps, but being so overpriced or even costing at all is bad.

queupthudere
queupthudere

If I pay $60 for a game I want the full game. I love forza but how they did forza 5 was a let down. They are using the f2p model on a retail game. It destroyed the experience for me. Plus no auction house.

seanwil545
seanwil545

I agree, but unfortunately this practice isn't going anywhere so long as people are willing to pay for it. The market as a whole has become far too expensive and one big cash grab.

After Forza 3 & 4, I really wanted Forza 5 but the XBO at launch $500, Forza Steering Wheel $400, Forza CD $60, XBL account $60. If I had dumped all that cash, I would have gotten r@ped with in-game microtransactions...crazy!

Gaming is become an elite activity.


Sidenote: Support the Indie Devs when possible. $20 bucks for Transistor was money well spent.

PandaWorkshop
PandaWorkshop

Soon, they will be selling language packs and the option to remove ingame ads.

drillkill
drillkill

@kystormchaser  i agree with you at some extend but this why they bring special editons out to charge more money aka watchdogs tombraider u et picture but the worst pple for this is call of duty rehashed maps frm old call of duty games thast should be free 

quickshooterMk2
quickshooterMk2

@robotopbuddy obviously you guys should advertise mount and blade online battles in gamespot 


there isn't any leveling up system in there, nor microtransactions 


same things with Mobas, in dota 2 leveling up only give out hats (skins) that doesn't affect gameplay 


people should stop buying the same shit every year and buy the hidden good games that doesn't get much advertising...

KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

@Darknight765 I'd agree. Yet I have to point out that these things can be implemented after you buy the game. There are very easy ways to circumvent the customer's 'voting-with-their-wallet'.

rohitv2312
rohitv2312

@crognalsen While I do believe micro transactions done in a right way will actually end most of the current world finance problems for publishers and devs, I actually get your point. But you do have to take in the fact that rarely do you ever see a gamer spending tons of money on extras just for getting further. Games IMO have not yet reached the point wherein they can be completely different exp[erience every time you fire it up. You always find a trend and gamers, being smart, recognize it and stop buying additional content.


Having said that I agree that charging around 60$ more for something which does give you an added advantage over the rest is plain kiddish. I mean its like a player using a hack or cheat code, except hes paying for it so hes not kicked from the servers.

rohitv2312
rohitv2312

@High-Res do you know BF3 is now FREE on origin? But well the fact that EA is now dealing with investors and stock martkets, i don't see these policies surprising at all.

beuneus12
beuneus12

@High-Res The most fun i had was when a hacker donated me and my friends tons of cash. We could finally take on the hackers without having to worry about ammo/med bills

Javier
Javier

@Loch324 "Video-games are turning into a business"  Did you really write that?

nefphlegm
nefphlegm

@Loch324 Luckily Loch there is hope. Indie gamers are creating games that they themselves know what gamers love and enjoy. As long as there are people who truly understand the mentality of a gamer we'll always have games to be enjoyed. Triple A games on the other hand... will be the McDonalds for the unwary. Be that as it may... i preferred local from scratch burgers at a diner over some mass marketed belly flop any day.

Coren_Larken
Coren_Larken

@SambaLele  You say Microtransactions are not the solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Tom also said this in the third paragraph "You see, Electronic Arts has solved a problem that it has created"

rohitv2312
rohitv2312

@julianboxe  Still they shouldn't exist, atleast not in that sort of way. You see games are all about EXPERIENCING stuff, its not a God damn movie where you see stuff, and when you can't take the story anymore or the angst in a romance movie kills you you just fast forward to the ending. THAT is exactly what publishers like EA do, tempt you to see through the game by nickel and diming you. Leave alone the fact that it makes you a bad gamer by not using skills, it is just SO WRONG about Video games and their spirit. 


This is partly the reason why I started losing intrest in BF series, they look like a boring movie with tons of cinematic than a game. I am not saying that graphic fidelity doesn't add up to the positive gaming experience its just that it is not the core of gaming.

nefphlegm
nefphlegm

@bernard978 Could you believe that 50-60 dollars DLC content? on an already 60 dollar game? When companies do that... they don't care about you... period. There was another article on here talking about how games shouldn't even have to cost 60 dollars... it's too much for too little.

seanwil545
seanwil545

@PandaWorkshop 

The sad part is that you'll have a group clowns saying things like....

"gamers these days want everything for free"

robotopbuddy
robotopbuddy moderator moderator

@quickshooterMk2 @robotopbuddy Well, I'm just a volunteer, and I'm pretty sure that advertising space comes down to who pays for it in the end too. Unfortunate perhaps, but yeah there certainly are quite a few hidden gems lying around, and I'm not talking just things like multiplayer games either. One of my more recent favourites is one way heroics - costs a pittance but lasted me almost 5 times as long as most AAA games before I got bored of it. It's a rogue-like that never feels cheap when you die as well, so it's a great game for people that don't normally like rogue-likes while also having a 'maniac' mode that's more suited for rogue-like fans.


DOTA2 isn't really a hidden one mind (I'm not familiar with Mount&Blade however) - that has had a few news stories here and is pretty well known at this point. Personally I consider it incomplete still atm, being someone that always played the wc3 DotA maps, but it's only a matter of time until DOTA2 catches up with everything there, models, animations, art, etc just takes a while when being made from scratch.

High-Res
High-Res

@quickshooterMk2 @robotopbuddy I couldn't agree more. this whole concept of putting "Leveling" in every game genre is stupid. At first it came off as a way to reward players for their loyalty and stick with one game for so long. It has quickly become a tool to encourage everyone to spend MORE money to keep up with the herd.


Like I mentioned before, Just a few years ago leveling was ONLY in RPGs. Now it is in everything! And it is in their because it helps them sell mistranslations. Not to make the game better, not to retain the player or reward him for his loyalty.


Leveling in FPS's, Racing games, anything other than an RPG is STUPID!!!!!!!!! and Dumb!

crognalsen
crognalsen

@rohitv2312 @crognalsen 


I don't believe anyone is saying that microtransactions aren't good for companies.  The questions is it good for consumers.  It's not good for this consumer.  I know others will say it is good for them.  Probably those with a lot of money to spend and are not really interested in playing video games in the first place.

High-Res
High-Res

@rohitv2312 @High-Res I know go figure. If there is one thing we should all take away from this is JUST be patient. It's hard because gamers are like migratory animals. We move from game to game like a giant heard of cattle grazes one field to the next. If we could just break our habit.


Now, is the Golden Era of X360 - Every Triple AAA Game from that last 5 years is like $1.99 - $9.99 on X360 at the used game stores.

robotopbuddy
robotopbuddy moderator moderator

@High-Res @quickshooterMk2 @robotopbuddy I think saying having levelling in anything other than an RPG is stupid is going a little far - it really does work in a few select games that aren't considered to be RPGs (action-adventure games, when done right instead of exploitatively, for instance). It definitely is an RPG element however and slapping it onto everything just for the sake of it, especially for multiplayer games where it can even be counter-productive, is a bit of a dumb idea to say the least.