5 ms·

> Also, we like games with mods and we want mods. Real-money shops make little sense with mods, when you can just download a mod to quadruple the number of rubi

> Also, we like games with mods and we want mods. Real-money shops make little sense with mods, when you can just download a mod to quadruple the number of rubies you get. Also, it is simply too easy to cheat. I think this touches on an important aspect of microtransactions that to my knowledge remains largely unexamined (but maybe I'm just not reading the right critics). Specifically, games are traditionally built as tools that players use to have fun. From house rules in tabletop games to Game Genie/Action Replay to Automatic Mario rom hacks to Minecraft texture packs, players changing games is something that's been part of gaming culture for a long time. When publishers turn a game into a marketing venue for microtransactions, however, they're essentially laying claim to that entire space, turning it into a dictated, manufactured product rather than a self-directed process in the player community.

derblitzmann 9y ago
Very true, especially since some games (cough cough besethda) benefit greatly from modding, fixing bugs in the main game as well as expanding upon it.
antonber 9y ago
Check out Roblox. They are a UGC platform that enables creators to take microtransactions via a centralized currency (Robux).
- jhvfcdyuhkljh 9y ago
  Itchy and Scratchy money huh. We all know how well that works.
mirashii 9y ago
I think Valve's model of pure cosmetics with an active workshop and ability to implement custom games shows you can still have microtransactions without turning away the notion of a player community. It just seems to me that the common monetization schemes implemented in other games is a bit of a blatant money grab made by forcing people to artificially grind.
- spondyl 9y ago
  On one hand I agree but on the other, Team Fortress 2, where the model originated has stagnated with only a handful of team members shipping actual content updates to the game with the majority of it just seemingly being community items made canon. There is still a community but it doesn't feel like the same game since microtransactions were added. It's still a fascinating example of a player run economy though with (virtual) "Mac OSX Earbuds" being used as a primary currency at one point
  - SXX 9y ago
    This is tell nothing about monetization model though. It's just how Valve operate: too few developers interested in working on game so its stagnates.
- fro0116 9y ago
  I am a fan of the _idea_ of only charging for cosmetics customizations instead of hiding actual game content behind paywalls, but the way that Valve and others have implemented it in practice is highly predatory, because nearly everything desirable is hidden behind an opaque wall of RNG instead of just put up for direct purchase for a known price. This is how you end up with gambling addicts blowing thousands of dollars for a virtual in-game skin, and it has enabled a vast network of grey-markets gambling operations to fuel those addictions [1]. It can be difficult for normal people (who mostly just enjoy the gameplay and maybe once in a while splurge on a few dozen bucks to make our virtual avatars look nicer) to emphasize with people who have real gambling problems, but that doesn't make it any more ethical to exploit them so blatantly. Hiding these gambling platforms behind the veneer of innocent-looking games also exposes gambling to a younger audience that's much more susceptible to predatory tactics often used by gambling platforms to build up their addiction. There are pretty good reasons why gampling is a regulated industry, and online games that employ these kinds of systems are way overdue for some oversight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_gambling
  - mirashii 9y ago
    I disagree with nothing you've said, but I do believe it's orthogonal to my main point: monetization via microtransactions doesn't need to inherently influence gameplay in any serious negative way, such as by introducing arbitrary grind or pay to win components. That said, I do wish the implementation was a bit better. It's an attempt at price discrimination which seems to work well, but the gambling aspect is definitely problematic and long in need of either a regulatory look or a pushback from the community. So far, the community seems to push back only when things become egregious.
croon 9y ago
I don't know if it holds for every scenario, but when it comes to microtransactions or DLC, I judge from the rule: Is this just bitflipping? If they want me to pay for simply giving me a higher value of X resources, it's bad. If they want me to pay for adding new content to the game, that's fine. There is a grey area when it becomes apparent that they removed key content from the "full game" in order to charge extra for it. The new Battlefront 2 debacle shows that. This should also cover the cases of user added mods since making your own content or hacking your copy of the game would be fine.

derblitzmann 9y ago

Very true, especially since some games (cough cough besethda) benefit greatly from modding, fixing bugs in the main game as well as expanding upon it.

antonber 9y ago

Check out Roblox. They are a UGC platform that enables creators to take microtransactions via a centralized currency (Robux).

jhvfcdyuhkljh 9y ago
Itchy and Scratchy money huh. We all know how well that works.

mirashii 9y ago

I think Valve's model of pure cosmetics with an active workshop and ability to implement custom games shows you can still have microtransactions without turning away the notion of a player community. It just seems to me that the common monetization schemes implemented in other games is a bit of a blatant money grab made by forcing people to artificially grind.

spondyl 9y ago
On one hand I agree but on the other, Team Fortress 2, where the model originated has stagnated with only a handful of team members shipping actual content updates to the game with the majority of it just seemingly being community items made canon. There is still a community but it doesn't feel like the same game since microtransactions were added. It's still a fascinating example of a player run economy though with (virtual) "Mac OSX Earbuds" being used as a primary currency at one point
- SXX 9y ago
  This is tell nothing about monetization model though. It's just how Valve operate: too few developers interested in working on game so its stagnates.
fro0116 9y ago
I am a fan of the _idea_ of only charging for cosmetics customizations instead of hiding actual game content behind paywalls, but the way that Valve and others have implemented it in practice is highly predatory, because nearly everything desirable is hidden behind an opaque wall of RNG instead of just put up for direct purchase for a known price. This is how you end up with gambling addicts blowing thousands of dollars for a virtual in-game skin, and it has enabled a vast network of grey-markets gambling operations to fuel those addictions [1]. It can be difficult for normal people (who mostly just enjoy the gameplay and maybe once in a while splurge on a few dozen bucks to make our virtual avatars look nicer) to emphasize with people who have real gambling problems, but that doesn't make it any more ethical to exploit them so blatantly. Hiding these gambling platforms behind the veneer of innocent-looking games also exposes gambling to a younger audience that's much more susceptible to predatory tactics often used by gambling platforms to build up their addiction. There are pretty good reasons why gampling is a regulated industry, and online games that employ these kinds of systems are way overdue for some oversight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_gambling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_gambling
- mirashii 9y ago
  I disagree with nothing you've said, but I do believe it's orthogonal to my main point: monetization via microtransactions doesn't need to inherently influence gameplay in any serious negative way, such as by introducing arbitrary grind or pay to win components. That said, I do wish the implementation was a bit better. It's an attempt at price discrimination which seems to work well, but the gambling aspect is definitely problematic and long in need of either a regulatory look or a pushback from the community. So far, the community seems to push back only when things become egregious.

croon 9y ago

I don't know if it holds for every scenario, but when it comes to microtransactions or DLC, I judge from the rule: Is this just bitflipping? If they want me to pay for simply giving me a higher value of X resources, it's bad. If they want me to pay for adding new content to the game, that's fine. There is a grey area when it becomes apparent that they removed key content from the "full game" in order to charge extra for it. The new Battlefront 2 debacle shows that. This should also cover the cases of user added mods since making your own content or hacking your copy of the game would be fine.