Take-Two Plans to Only Release Games with Microtransactions

bristol17 said:
To me offering to sell someone chintzy cosmetic items that they don't need to play the game isn't making something pay to play...it's just pay to optionally accessorize. It's not like game companies weren't going to release crappy, unfinished games if it wasn't for micro-transactions...the only difference is that you can now pay more to finish the game where you wouldn't have been able to before lol.




But having a tattoo on my character doesn't effect the game in any meaningful way. It's just a cosmetic item, it's either worth it to you to pay for or it isn't but you have the option to have it or not which I see nothing wrong with.
Click to expand...

You may not value that part of the game content, but perhaps I do. Cosmetic content is still content - treating it any differently is simply placing a tax on the way some people like to play versus others and its bloody frustrating if it happens your preference gets the surcharge. I make this sort of comparison. Imagine if you will a MMORPG where the developers require a real-money purchase to say, equip loot from raid/dungeon drops, or perhaps consumable keys to get into the dungeon at all. Or perhaps something comparable for PVP content. Maybe you really like raiding or running dungeons or PVP, so it sucks to have to pay extra but when you complain everyone else in the game player and developer alike says "Oh its just an option. You don't have to do THAT content. There's other stuff. You could craft, or sit around talking, or run the free quests etc... What's that you say? But the people who like to run around questing can do all of the quests without having to pay extra, so why do you have to in order to claim all that shiny raid gear?

That is my point. In my time in MMOs I've met lots of different players and during the Subscription era they all paid the same and played how they wanted. The guy who wanted to PVP all day wearing a motley array of mismatched min-maxer gear could do that, but so could the guy who wanted to collect all sorts of gear to make into fashionable outfits to show off to their fellow players while they socialize. With the advent of microtransactions, they knew that the amount of people who did the latter would be less, but their attraction to the game would potentially be more profitable because they stayed around with their friends etc... so they started charging for "cosmetics" . People who didn't care about them well..didn't care, so they'd wouldn't have a revolution on their hands. However, people who did care would now be tempted, irritated, to spend spend spend, especially when they put the really cool clothes behind the exclusive paywall. If these people got mad, they'd be a smaller percentage and the content for them is cheaper to make - charging $15 for an outfit vs $15 worth of new dungeons - so its easy money. Now, this actually failed during the early generation when there were players like myself who resisted this change and we were pretty much the only ones playing , but once the "Free2Play" gates opened and a new generation grew up ready to throw cash without thinking, it got even easier to justify it. However, the idea is no less repugnant.

Content is content, cosmetic or otherwise. Many people like to customize their characters for one reason or another - if they didn't, these companies wouldn't be charging or making lootboxes or other nonsense. However, I take exception these bad practices in general, but especially when it is biased in a way that discriminates and then tries to get out of it by saying 'its only cosmetic".
 
I've said it before and I will say it again...If a game has ANY microtransactions in it, I will not buy it...PERIOD. I dont care if I end up playing nothing but indies and 20 year old games, I am NOT going along with this BS any longer! I think when more people take this stance, we will see and end to this practice...but not until more people put their feet down!
 
Xaeos said:
You may not value that part of the game content, but perhaps I do. Cosmetic content is still content - treating it any differently is simply placing a tax on the way some people like to play versus others and its bloody frustrating if it happens your preference gets the surcharge. I make this sort of comparison. Imagine if you will a MMORPG where the developers require a real-money purchase to say, equip loot from raid/dungeon drops, or perhaps consumable keys to get into the dungeon at all. Or perhaps something comparable for PVP content. Maybe you really like raiding or running dungeons or PVP, so it sucks to have to pay extra but when you complain everyone else in the game player and developer alike says "Oh its just an option. You don't have to do THAT content. There's other stuff. You could craft, or sit around talking, or run the free quests etc... What's that you say? But the people who like to run around questing can do all of the quests without having to pay extra, so why do you have to in order to claim all that shiny raid gear?

That is my point. In my time in MMOs I've met lots of different players and during the Subscription era they all paid the same and played how they wanted. The guy who wanted to PVP all day wearing a motley array of mismatched min-maxer gear could do that, but so could the guy who wanted to collect all sorts of gear to make into fashionable outfits to show off to their fellow players while they socialize. With the advent of microtransactions, they knew that the amount of people who did the latter would be less, but their attraction to the game would potentially be more profitable because they stayed around with their friends etc... so they started charging for "cosmetics" . People who didn't care about them well..didn't care, so they'd wouldn't have a revolution on their hands. However, people who did care would now be tempted, irritated, to spend spend spend, especially when they put the really cool clothes behind the exclusive paywall. If these people got mad, they'd be a smaller percentage and the content for them is cheaper to make - charging $15 for an outfit vs $15 worth of new dungeons - so its easy money. Now, this actually failed during the early generation when there were players like myself who resisted this change and we were pretty much the only ones playing , but once the "Free2Play" gates opened and a new generation grew up ready to throw cash without thinking, it got even easier to justify it. However, the idea is no less repugnant.

Content is content, cosmetic or otherwise. Many people like to customize their characters for one reason or another - if they didn't, these companies wouldn't be charging or making lootboxes or other nonsense. However, I take exception these bad practices in general, but especially when it is biased in a way that discriminates and then tries to get out of it by saying 'its only cosmetic".
Click to expand...

I guess I consider myself lucky that I value games and content differently than you do. To me, if it doesn't effect gameplay I don't worry about it. All the cosmetic stuff is, indeed, just extra. I get it, it's different for you and I'm not trying to change your mind and it probably sucks to spend $500 to make your character look unique, but my outlook remains unchanged.
 
I announce my intention to never again buy or play a Take Two Interactive title.

This is bothersome though, as they own 2K Games and I love the Civilization Series.

That being said, if Civilization becomes riddled with microtransactions I'll likely never want to play it again anyway...
 
Xaeos said:
You may not value that part of the game content, but perhaps I do. Cosmetic content is still content - treating it any differently is simply placing a tax on the way some people like to play versus others and its bloody frustrating if it happens your preference gets the surcharge. I make this sort of comparison. Imagine if you will a MMORPG where the developers require a real-money purchase to say, equip loot from raid/dungeon drops, or perhaps consumable keys to get into the dungeon at all. Or perhaps something comparable for PVP content. Maybe you really like raiding or running dungeons or PVP, so it sucks to have to pay extra but when you complain everyone else in the game player and developer alike says "Oh its just an option. You don't have to do THAT content. There's other stuff. You could craft, or sit around talking, or run the free quests etc... What's that you say? But the people who like to run around questing can do all of the quests without having to pay extra, so why do you have to in order to claim all that shiny raid gear?

That is my point. In my time in MMOs I've met lots of different players and during the Subscription era they all paid the same and played how they wanted. The guy who wanted to PVP all day wearing a motley array of mismatched min-maxer gear could do that, but so could the guy who wanted to collect all sorts of gear to make into fashionable outfits to show off to their fellow players while they socialize. With the advent of microtransactions, they knew that the amount of people who did the latter would be less, but their attraction to the game would potentially be more profitable because they stayed around with their friends etc... so they started charging for "cosmetics" . People who didn't care about them well..didn't care, so they'd wouldn't have a revolution on their hands. However, people who did care would now be tempted, irritated, to spend spend spend, especially when they put the really cool clothes behind the exclusive paywall. If these people got mad, they'd be a smaller percentage and the content for them is cheaper to make - charging $15 for an outfit vs $15 worth of new dungeons - so its easy money. Now, this actually failed during the early generation when there were players like myself who resisted this change and we were pretty much the only ones playing , but once the "Free2Play" gates opened and a new generation grew up ready to throw cash without thinking, it got even easier to justify it. However, the idea is no less repugnant.

Content is content, cosmetic or otherwise. Many people like to customize their characters for one reason or another - if they didn't, these companies wouldn't be charging or making lootboxes or other nonsense. However, I take exception these bad practices in general, but especially when it is biased in a way that discriminates and then tries to get out of it by saying 'its only cosmetic".
Click to expand...


I have never seen cosmetic content done well in such a way that it doesn't ruin the atmosphere and feel of a game.

If there were an option in the game to disable cosmetic content on the client side so I don't have to see the asshats players running around with guns wearing pink tutu's then I'd probably be fine with it.

The nail in the coffin for me with CSGO was when they introduced skins, and you couldn't hop on a server without people tall Ng about trading and crap like that. I even enjoyed PUBG in the beginning. The reward cosmetic items were pretty thematic and worked. Then they introduced the limited edition pay to unlock crates, and players started to run around wearing Halloween costumes, and it pretty much killed it for me.

It should be possible to include cosmetic microtransactions in games without ruining the atmosphere, but I have yet to see it be done.

I still question the intellect of anyone willing to pay real money for fake clothes for an in game character though. They ought to be put out of their misery.
 
Xaeos said:
You may not value that part of the game content, but perhaps I do. Cosmetic content is still content - treating it any differently is simply placing a tax on the way some people like to play versus others and its bloody frustrating if it happens your preference gets the surcharge. I make this sort of comparison. Imagine if you will a MMORPG where the developers require a real-money purchase to say, equip loot from raid/dungeon drops, or perhaps consumable keys to get into the dungeon at all. Or perhaps something comparable for PVP content. Maybe you really like raiding or running dungeons or PVP, so it sucks to have to pay extra but when you complain everyone else in the game player and developer alike says "Oh its just an option. You don't have to do THAT content. There's other stuff. You could craft, or sit around talking, or run the free quests etc... What's that you say? But the people who like to run around questing can do all of the quests without having to pay extra, so why do you have to in order to claim all that shiny raid gear?

That is my point. In my time in MMOs I've met lots of different players and during the Subscription era they all paid the same and played how they wanted. The guy who wanted to PVP all day wearing a motley array of mismatched min-maxer gear could do that, but so could the guy who wanted to collect all sorts of gear to make into fashionable outfits to show off to their fellow players while they socialize. With the advent of microtransactions, they knew that the amount of people who did the latter would be less, but their attraction to the game would potentially be more profitable because they stayed around with their friends etc... so they started charging for "cosmetics" . People who didn't care about them well..didn't care, so they'd wouldn't have a revolution on their hands. However, people who did care would now be tempted, irritated, to spend spend spend, especially when they put the really cool clothes behind the exclusive paywall. If these people got mad, they'd be a smaller percentage and the content for them is cheaper to make - charging $15 for an outfit vs $15 worth of new dungeons - so its easy money. Now, this actually failed during the early generation when there were players like myself who resisted this change and we were pretty much the only ones playing , but once the "Free2Play" gates opened and a new generation grew up ready to throw cash without thinking, it got even easier to justify it. However, the idea is no less repugnant.

Content is content, cosmetic or otherwise. Many people like to customize their characters for one reason or another - if they didn't, these companies wouldn't be charging or making lootboxes or other nonsense. However, I take exception these bad practices in general, but especially when it is biased in a way that discriminates and then tries to get out of it by saying 'its only cosmetic".
Click to expand...
Used to be if you saw someone in badass armor, you knew they achieved it rather than just paid a few bucks. It was envy inducing and cool as hell to get yours eventually...
 
bristol16 said:
I guess I'm in the minority by not seeing a problem with this. If you want to spend real money on in game items than you have that option. If you don't want to spend real money on in game items than nobody is forcing you to. If you still want all the shiny items and don't want to spend money on them than just play the damn game. Everyone is upset that game companies are giving gamers more options?
Click to expand...

Call me old-fashioned, but, given that we are talking about full-price games, I'd prefer options which don't cost me extra. The problem is that, inevitably, these buying options move game design away from providing value for money to 'gamer retention' for 'recurrent spending' (by, for example, increasing the grind so you can buy the option to play less, inserting gambling mechanics, etc. ).
 
Last edited:
It seems like all the game companies that got famous for really good games are now just pissing in the water to make everyone hate them.

Killing GameSpy was the opener in the dumbed down games war: No good games for new gamers to compare to, so any level of suckage is ok.

Remember Quake 3 and then Quake 3 Arena, quickly thereafter?

Quake 3 had a huge variety of skins, and it was easy to make your own.

Then Q3TA arrived, and the skins were gone; you were stuck with what you had.

Thankfully, Q3, UT2003, Crysis Wars, and many other still work on LAN, and there are ways to use a VPN. :)

Crysis wars is still playable on the web; there's still some die hard players.

Doom is the only game I have bought in the last few years I really like; hell, it's good for Cardio! :rofl:

Quake Champions was fun in the first closed Beta; it went downhill fast after that. :(
 
SecretStash said:
That's how you do it now. I still plan to finish the Mass Effect series once I get a good bundle or deal for ME2 dlcs. Then I'll see if I can get a deal for 3. I am in no hurry. After I pre-ordered ME2 then realized others got the complete game for cheaper, I realized I did things wrong.

Take-Two? Might be a while.
Click to expand...
Well it's going to be never if you're waiting for a sale on the ME2 DLC. You can thank "Bioware Points" for that.
 
grtitan said:
Sadly, the sheeps that love preordering and other shit will continue buying into this crap.
Click to expand...

The only pre-ordering I ever do is each World of Warcraft expansion. I remember the midnight sales of Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King at the local GameStop. When Cataclysm came out, I started the pre-order digital download.
 
Last edited:
bristol17 said:
To me offering to sell someone chintzy cosmetic items that they don't need to play the game isn't making something pay to play...it's just pay to optionally accessorize. It's not like game companies weren't going to release crappy, unfinished games if it wasn't for micro-transactions...the only difference is that you can now pay more to finish the game where you wouldn't have been able to before lol.




But having a tattoo on my character doesn't effect the game in any meaningful way. It's just a cosmetic item, it's either worth it to you to pay for or it isn't but you have the option to have it or not which I see nothing wrong with.
Click to expand...
My point was they don't have to put anything into a game anymore, they just have to make sure its playable and not spend the time on refining the game unless you pay extra. I remember the modding days of CS during beta days. I could go and DL skins, sounds, HUDs, all types of changes to the game and do it all on the fly without paying and it didn't change the game for others just my perspective. Now it adds crap to the game and even give certain people an added advantage, The pay to win model. Right now it might just be cosmetic but the model will grow and change because it makes them alot of money.
 
jnemesh said:
I've said it before and I will say it again...If a game has ANY microtransactions in it, I will not buy it...PERIOD. I dont care if I end up playing nothing but indies and 20 year old games, I am NOT going along with this BS any longer! I think when more people take this stance, we will see and end to this practice...but not until more people put their feet down!
Click to expand...
I feel the same, except I've passed beyond the anger stage into sad acceptance. Modern day gaming just isn't for me, at least where the majority of titles are concerned. I've recently been playing Age of Empires II once more, so . . . yup.
 
Won't put a dent into Red Dead Redemption's sales. It's going to fly off the shelf.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
I feel the same, except I've passed beyond the anger stage into sad acceptance. Modern day gaming just isn't for me, at least where the majority of titles are concerned. I've recently been playing Age of Empires II once more, so . . . yup.
Click to expand...

I was at "acceptance" and buying games like Overwatch and just ignoring the loot crates and crap like that as much as possible. But we are seeing companies double down on this practice, and I have had more than enough. We are now seeing games like Shadow of Mordor...a SINGLE PLAYER GAME...offer microtransactions! If we don't make it unprofitable for them, it will continue. So I am going out on a limb now to be one of the first to put a self-imposed boycott on all games...and my actions alone wont matter, but I am HOPING others join me. If enough of us stop buying into this BS, then they will be forced to change course. But right now, there are so many sheep out there feeding into their greed, they have every reason to continue!
 
Meh. The bitchfest over how Doom on the Switch about how it "didn't deserve a full retail price" is enough proof for me that DLC and lootcrates are exactly how developers and publishers deserve to get their money. Their consumers are entitled assholes, at best. Then again, it seems people have the false belief that developers owe anything to consumers, and vice versa. Just like the car salesman, they aren't your friend.
 
M76 said:
Nope, if that were the case there would be no problem. However I'm yet to see a game that would use that model. The items you can unlock by paying are usually not available trough regular gameplay. You want a custom tattoo on your character? PAY. You want a new minor decal? PAY. This model is terrible and it does kill modding, as they won't allow mods for a game where they expect you to pay even for minor cosmetics. Modders would wipe the floor with that shit, they can fulfil niche wants much better. That's why bethesda is trying like hell to somehow make paid modding a thing to overcome that "limitation" or "freedom" depending on which side you stand. So far the pushback was enough to stop it dead in it's tracks, but it's not like they're going to stop trying.
Click to expand...

The model desn't kill modders if they permit you to sell your mods. For some things this will likely be untenably hard, but for a lot of cosmetic stuff it should be viable. then just take a cut of sales ala app stores. Roblox does this for the kiddies, valve has tried doing this, there's no reason you can't do it properly.
 
raz-0 said:
The model desn't kill modders if they permit you to sell your mods. For some things this will likely be untenably hard, but for a lot of cosmetic stuff it should be viable. then just take a cut of sales ala app stores. Roblox does this for the kiddies, valve has tried doing this, there's no reason you can't do it properly.
Click to expand...
It doesn't kill modders, that's not what I've said, It kills modding as we know it. If it's paid then It's no longer about creating what the modder thinks would be cool, it's about creating what others would want. And working to meet the expectations of others means no innovation and risktaking. You (as a modder) simply do what you think will sell, there will be no incentives in fulfilling niche interests. Which modding was/is best suited to.

Within a free modding ecosystem if you fulfill a niche interest you get dozens of people's gratitude. If you do something clickbaity you don't get nothing really.

If mods are paid and you fulfill a niche interest you get a few dozen downloads and make a few dollars on it, but if you do something clickbaity you get thousands of downloads and make a good deal of money.


You see why I think paid mods would be so bad?
 
jeremyshaw said:
Meh. The bitchfest over how Doom on the Switch about how it "didn't deserve a full retail price" is enough proof for me that DLC and lootcrates are exactly how developers and publishers deserve to get their money. Their consumers are entitled assholes, at best. Then again, it seems people have the false belief that developers owe anything to consumers, and vice versa. Just like the car salesman, they aren't your friend.
Click to expand...
This... Gamers tend to act very entitled it seems like always, it is a rowdy crowd. Devs are not charities, people.
 
GoldenTiger said:
This... Gamers tend to act very entitled it seems like always, it is a rowdy crowd. Devs are not charities, people.
Click to expand...

I can complain about them in an effort that if enough people complain, they might change. My dollars are not donations, either...I expect a product that I want to buy. If I don't see the value, I'm not going to buy it.
 
MavericK said:
I can complain about them in an effort that if enough people complain, they might change. My dollars are not donations, either...I expect a product that I want to buy. If I don't see the value, I'm not going to buy it.
Click to expand...
Fair deal there. You aren't in the same crowd ;).
 
With the exception of a small group of online friends, the online community (mostly brats and tards) pushed me offline long ago, if it takes microtransactions to get the full enjoyment out of SP or continue to game with that small online group, then that is what I needed to do something I've thought about for a few years...

...stop gaming.

Wanna bet the timing coincides with the EoL of Win7, going to save me some money.
 
Canada's minister of mobile gaming approves
 
GoldenTiger said:
This... Gamers tend to act very entitled it seems like always, it is a rowdy crowd. Devs are not charities, people.
Click to expand...

Meh, I expect publishers to provide value for my money - in the case of Doom on the switch: they are selling a game with extremely low dev cost (they are, after all, using the pre-existing assets) at full price, and at the same time they moved the cost of the 6GB extra download onto the costumer instead of putting the full game on the cartridge and when they don't have a cost for the cartridge, they still charge full price. (as opposed to, say, Rime, where the digital download will be $10 less).

To me, the doom port feels rushed, with Bethesda relying on the demon-blood-tinted glasses of frigging doom on the switch to sell it. Imo, the lack of resources spent is extremely disappointing, especially after the care which they seem to have poured into the upcoming skyrim port, which makes the full price they are also charging for that port much more palatable to me.
 
Last edited:
Hate these games!

Somebody calculated, that you would have to spend like $10,000 to finish game like Clash of Clans.

That's crazy!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top