Hola readers, if there are any that actually come here regularly. Sorry for the lack of updates in recent weeks, it's taking a very long time to write the multiplayer review for Black Ops II because I want to be as detailed and impartial as possible, leading to a lot of editing and a lot of editorial changes to the review. To placate any regular readers, which I'm sure there are none, I thought I'd write a small opinion piece on the recent furore against microtransactions following their introduction to Dead Space 3 and EA's Chief Financial Officer announcing that all their future games will include microtransactions before taking it back about a day ago. Once again, this is my opinion and for the conspiracy enthusiasts among you, I am not paid by any video game companies (although I wish it were the case) to defend them or promote their products.
A Brief Background on the Kerfuffle
Before we get to the meat of the issue, let's talk about what microtransactions are in the first place. As I understand them, microtransactions involve a system with a game, usually a free-to-play game, that allows players to purchase virtual items like weapons, vehicles, equipment or hats for real-life money. Aside from a few jabs at so-called freemium games, a portmanteau of free and premium, usually criticising the idea that players could feasibly skip the whole experience grind and just pay to get better equipment for their characters, microtransactions have been largely uncontroversial in the video game community.
The catalyst for all the hate and rage against the corporate machine stems from EA's decision to incorporate microtransactions into Dead Space 3, a full-priced retail game. Most of the criticism directed at EA involved the usual spiel of them being money-grubbing corporate leeches who were trying to drain gamers of their hard-earned cash. The more reasonable members of the gaming community pointed out that these purchases were entirely optional. The thing that infuriates me the most about this latest expression of what I like to call "gamer's entitlement" is that all the anger is directed at something that hasn't been controversial in the least in other games like Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed III, Need for Speed, World of Warcraft, League of Legends but suddenly becomes a huge issue when a single-player game published by EA is involved? I mean, come on, even Xbox Live uses microtransactions when you want to customise your Avatar. So, gamers are okay when they can pay to win when fighting other players but get pissed when they can pay to win against AI?
Again, rather predictably, gamers are up-in-arms at EA and have been calling their brethren to boycott all EA games until they fix this travesty and remove microtransactions as a concept, damning it to the dustbin of video game history.
Why is Hating Microtransactions Immature and Wrong?
In short, because it's an optional payment. Let me put this in a way that some of the less mature gamers can understand. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE PART IN THE MICROTRANSACTIONS TO ENJOY THE GAME. The whole point of microtransactions is that they are optional whereby people can choose to pay a small amount of money to give them a headstart in the game. If you want to go through the grind as part of your experience, then by all means, do it. Look, I'm not a fan for paying for virtual items in a game with legal tender but I genuinely couldn't give a toss if someone else decides they need cooler hats in Team Fortress 2 or more resources in Dead Space 3. The brilliant thing about video games is that people can enjoy different parts of the game or enjoy playing the game in any number of ways. To highlight how illogical all this misplaced hate is, I'll use an example. Imagine for a second, you are a person who dislikes bananas. One day, you see someone who is eating a banana. You then proceed to walk up to them, complain that bananas are the root of all evil and promptly give the banana a dressing down for being a waste of money even though you haven't spent a single dollar of your own money on it.
Actually, if you think about it, gamers should love microtransactions because they help to subsidise games and keeping them at the normal retail price of $60. Think about it. Why would companies jump on the microtransaction bandwagon unless they knew that it was a surefire way for them to make more money? If that's the case, it'd go a long way to help retail games stay at a fairly reasonable price since publishers have found a brand-new way to keep their profit margins without bumping up the prices and chasing away all their customers. If you still think that's money-grubbing and don't want to have anything to do with microtransactions, then, fine, boycott the entire catalogue of games published by EA, even if you do enjoy some of their other games. To take it further, why don't you boycott games by other publishers that use microtransactions as well? Why not boycott Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard? To use another stupid example, it'd be like boycotting a Quarter Pounder because McDonald's charges more for extra patties in a Big Mac.
Look, I'm happy for people to have their opinion regarding microtransactions. It's fine that people don't trust it and think that it shouldn't be part of video games. I respect that. What I cannot respect is the sheep-like response of the community in general who are basically painting microtransactions as the arrival of the Anti-Christ of gaming. As a nickel and dime gamer myself, I understand the desire not to have to spend extra money to play a game but why care about microtransactions if they aren't hurting you personally. Sure, someone else's wallet might take a hit but does that really affect you? If you say that in multiplayer games, it could give the p-l-ayer (pun intended) an unfair advantage, then you're dead wrong. Developers nowadays understand the need for balance and tend to balance their multiplayer games extremely well. If the things that people get from microtransactions are overpowered though, you don't have to wait long for the community outrage and the resulting patch nerfing that item. Also, don't forget that because these players have paid for the equipment, they never underwent the grind to get them which means more likely than not, they haven't picked up any new skills or improved their ability along the way.
Conclusion
Anyway, that's my two cents on the issue. If you want more in-depth discussion and detailed analysis, you can buy the Additional Information Article Pack for the low price of $5.00. Just kidding. The next article will likely be the multiplayer review of Black Ops II, to be published some time in the near future. Until then.
Renegade Sandwich, out.
Interesting points, and I generally tend to agree, especially in regard to the sheep-like community.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, enjoy the idea of expanding and adding to a game through -optional- additional content. Of course, instinctively I would prefer not to pay, but you can't reasonably expect developers to keep shelling out new content without a financial incentive. Unfortunately, reason and rationality are not gifts bestowed upon us all.
I think, however, that there are some concerns, even fears, which more rational gamers might have with this evolution to micro-transactions, and am keen to hear your opinion.
Firstly, a concern about how far the dlc, micro-transaction or even ingame-transaction will go. Simply; "When will it stop?" If these companies like EA (who are all inherently evil, capitalistic fronts for the systematic oppression of the working class) begin to see the success and financial merit of these transactions (and they have,) how long before our gaming experience is no longer enhanced by them, but dictated by them?
Which leads into my second concern, and one which is my major reservation with the process: When will we see dlc begin to retract from the primary "vanilla" offerings of the game? At what stage will features which would have made up the original package, be portioned off in order to sell as a micro-transaction?
Now, I'm not saying that all developers would do this deliberately or at all, but the concern is there. For example: An idea forms in a development studio, at a reasonable stage of development. It is circled around, is generally popular and deemed suitable for the current project. The idea is fleshed out. Enter the predicament; When does the next step in this process go from "Excellent, let's get to working that into our game." to "That will make excellent dlc."
The fear is that gamers feel, not that they are entitled to additional content, but that they will begin to be short changed with the original package.
To borrow from your hamburger analogy; I believe the concern is not that McDonald's charges extra for additional patties in the Big Mac, but that it will soon begin charging for the bun in the middle.
Simply, I have no evidence that this has happened, I have no idea if it ever will. The fear may well be displaced, I mean, car manufacturers started charging for optional extras such as iPod connectivity and parking cameras years ago, it hasn’t led to them removing the back seats and charging you for them on top of the vehicle. Regardless, my point is that this concern may be a factor behind the current distaste of micro-transactions. Again, I’m just trying to throw the idea open to discussion, and would be keen to hear your take.
Cheers,
Reasonably regular reader ;P
Hello, welcome to my dingy blog in the vast wilderness we call the internet. I'll try to answer your points as you set them out but I might end up ranting.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of DLC dictating gaming experience, we're already seeing that in all of the games that have DLC (which are all of them), at least that's what most gamers will tell you. Honestly, I believe that a lot of game developers out there are in it for the art. They love video games and they want to share good times with the people out there who similarly enjoy video gaming. DLC is a means for them to make extra money back on the costs of production as well as keep the game interesting to the community. If we know anything about gamers is that they tend to drop games when the next incarnation or next big thing comes out. So, DLC is a fantastic way to support a game for a very, very long time. Especially if done well, like DICE and the Battlefield 3 expansions.
Likewise, the worry about the vanilla experience being dull is a legitimate worry but one that shouldn't because plenty of games can stand on their own two feet without additional content. DLC enhances the experience later in the lifespan, it doesn't detract from the game itself. Look at Borderlands 2. The DLC is fantastic and adds a lot of life to the game but that doesn't mean the game on its own is terrible. Gamers feel that they are being short-changed because they don't see beyond their own experience and selves. It's all about them. Sure, DLC detracts in that you can't play additional content but you don't have to. You can enjoy the plain $80 experience, which a lot of the time, is fantastic! Even if someone raised the point of Day 1 DLC, I see no problems with that. Most of the time, Day 1 DLC is a different suit of armour or a skin for a weapon or a character skin. That doesn't detract from your enjoyment from a game, it's just an aesthetic option that you can pay for. If people want to pay for it, then let them! Why does it matter if you can't access it? It doesn't give you any additional incentive to play the game.
Simply put, the concern is wrong. Publishers want to make money. They don't want to alienate their clients. If they push it too far then no one is going to buy their games and they'll lose money and it'll affect their profit margins. Simple as that. Gamers have a lot of power through the purchase or non-purchase of a game. If someone doesn't like a game because it has DLC, then don't buy the game. Simple as that. Don't buy the game and whine because there's DLC.