Jump to content

Microtransactions in games and apps


Capslock Cadet

Recommended Posts

Capslock Cadet

I just read this article about microtransactions in games and apps. I think it's a really interesting topic, because a few times a year I see headlines like "kid spends 10000$ on game without parents knowledge" or similar things, and it's gotten me thinking about microtransactions as a monetization model. Especially when it comes to games.

I mean, most games have a final cost (at least they used to). There's a max amount of money you could spend on them; perhaps 60$ + a 15$ expansion, or something like that. But with microtransactions there is no max, and it seems that a lot of companies purposefully design products to make sure we pay a lot, rather than creating something a well thought out app/game. I mean, if your goal is to make sure people continously spend smalll amounts of money several times per day, that has to affect how you design it, right?

The article really sums it up well at the start:

Game studios are now purposefully designing bad systems and mechanics, hoping that people will be willing to pay to get past the poorly-made parts of the service: when microtransactions are the sole source of income, we start to build our entire product around that model.

It's kind of ironic that gambling is heavily regulated, while app stores barely care to remove products that try to trick customers out of money.

What do you guys think? Is this something that has been bothering you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't necessarily bother me, but I have noticed that a lot of games have been becoming "pay to win." They'll give you the game for free and you can play a certain amount per day or something, but you have to pay to play more or for extra gear.

It seems like a good business model. Some developers make a lot of money for relatively simple games. Candy Crush's developer was sold recently for $5.9B - http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/11/03/candy-crush-maker-sold-to-activision-in-59b-deal.html

Interesting that you bring up the gambling comparison. I hadn't really given much thought to that. I think it would be easier for people to get addicted to these games than tradition games. Maybe they need to create some "know your limit, play within it" warning/educational commercials or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awkward JoJoeh

You wanna be able to defeat the boss at a certain stage in the game or just wanna look real cool? Here! Buy this armor! And armor for your horse, too!

Like the way this gun looks and sounds? Buy it! Buy it so you can own it now rather than having to actually play the game to earn it!
Say, you really like maps, don't you? Sorry that we didn't release them with the official game but guess what, you can spend your hard-earned middle-class money to buy all the maps you want!

Hey you, yeah you, the gamer sittin' in your lil' gamin' chair with your gamin' headset and your gamin' game, you like this game, don'tcha? Huh? Dontcha?!You've got a job, right? You've got a phone, too, right? You can play this game on your console and another of our games on your phone! Simultaneously, if you can manage it! The only catch is: you have to buy a lil' bit o' dis and dat from time-to-time to keep your character in tip-top shape. But that doesn't matter! Give me all your money!

Oh! Did you lose all your lives in your mobile game? No? Do you want more special stuff to make the game easier for you and me, both? You do?! Whoopie!

Oh, game developers. What happened?!

There are no rising tides here, my friend.

Only miles and miles of piles and piles of cash...

Which we gave you...

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, yes, micro-transaction games are designed to bilk you out of small amounts of money, often by offering to let you skip challenging parts of the game or skip cooldowns. Its a different model to the games of old. Pay as much as you'd like, though we'll do everything we can to make you forget just HOW much you're spending. This can get irritating, and even debilitating...much like gambling, it can be very addicting, and its easy to say "Oh, its just a dollar!" And not remember that you've said that fifty times this week.

On the other hand...what are we blaming these companies for? Making a product that we're willing to pay for, and making a cutthroat profit off it? If the games are truly that terrible, why don't we just stop playing them? Why is it the problem of companies when people CHOOSE to spend their own money? If your child is spending your money, you need to have a serious talk with your kid and make it impossible for them to be spending it, by either removing the ability to pay for things from the device or putting on a password they don't know, and keeping your cards out of their reach lest they resort to thievery. It is OUR job to look after our OWN spending. It is a companies job to make money, in whatever way works best for them. If that's making a solid, well put together product and selling it for a one time price, so be it. If that's making a fast cash grab puzzle game and offering people the chance to pay for powerups or skips, so be that. If you think about it, dollar stores essentially do the same thing. You go in and get crappy or tiny versions of things you could get much better versions of, but its only a dollar! And really, how often do you come out of a dollar store with JUST what you planned on getting? Usually you walk out with some chips and a pop and three other nifty knick knacks you saw on the way to your water bottle or pair of fuzzy socks. Yet no one is railing against dollar stores for their business model of "sell crap for so cheap you buy it anyway". Why are we holding the companies responsible for our lack of self control, our decision to spend money on their games and apps? Even if it is a model designed to make you not notice how much your spending? Our own spending habbits are our own responsibility, not that of the people making products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many sites offer refunds if your child ran up a huge bill without your knowledge. All sites I know of now have parental controls, so you can block purchases. So, in order to spend money, one has to choose to do so, pretty much (or shouldn't really be using tech if they can't figure out how to lock their accounts from auto-purchasing).

Personally, I hate games that require you to pay micros to get anywhere. I don't play them. I don't mind micros being an EXTRA that I can get either from playing or paying, but I don't like them being mandatory. My favorite is when they are just fluff - want to look cooler? Buy this. If it doesn't mean I can't do everything I want in the game, I don't mind.

Is it easy to spend money that way? Yeah. "Oh, it's just $0.99 to get past this level.." and it's easy to "just" spend a dollar. But, ya know, it's still a choice and if you choose to spend that dollar, it's on you. Just like when I choose to spend $0.99 on a soda cause it's "just a dollar"

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a business point of view it's a great way to ensure that customers increase their spend, the same way that a car needs servicing.

However, from the gamers side I can see how, wrapped up in a game especially a multi player one you could lose track of how many upgrades you're buying, or get pressured into buying them. It wouldn't surprise me if employees of the appropriate company pose as players to get people to buy these upgrades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally hate the model. I'm primarily a player of MMO's and console games and it's gotten to the point were I won't buy a game until they release the "year one" edition with all the DLC included. I have to wait a year but I get the game I should have gotten to begin with. For MMO's I just play the free ones and don't buy anything for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a business model, it works. They bank on the fact that most people don't think like I do when it comes to microtransactions, which is something like this: if I spend $2 a week on this game, and there's 52 weeks in a year, that means I'll end up spending over $100 on this game in a year. In reality, most people don't add it up to see the long term amount. From a gamer perspective, I hate it. I'm like Nevyn, I refuse to buy "half made" games and will wait for the GOTY edition that includes all the DLC if possible unless it's a game I've been really, really anticipating, which is rare. I've played quite a few "free to play" games, where some were pretty good about letting you progress without the need to buy stuff while others let you get to a certain point before you plateaued and couldn't really continue without buying stuff. To the latter games, I'd quit after I reached that point as it wasn't worth it to me to continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

I could see this business strategy potentially backfiring, especially in today's world where people are constantly sharing ideas on the internet. If enough people realize that game companies are setting up their games to work poorly until subsequent payments are made, this info will spread, and larger numbers of people may decide purchasing the initial game isn't worth it. Enough people refuse to buy the games, companies will be forced to make games decent again. Supposing the law of supply and demand still stands...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see this business strategy potentially backfiring, especially in today's world where people are constantly sharing ideas on the internet. If enough people realize that game companies are setting up their games to work poorly until subsequent payments are made, this info will spread, and larger numbers of people may decide purchasing the initial game isn't worth it. Enough people refuse to buy the games, companies will be forced to make games decent again. Supposing the law of supply and demand still stands...

It's hard to get people to not buy a game, even when we know it's incomplete. SC2 for example, we all knew it was woefully incomplete. The first Starcraft had all three races, the expac just expanded on the story. SC2 only launched ONE race's story, you would have to fork out money for the others. Also, left out fan favorite units (lurkers anyone?) that everyone knew would eventually be put in, in later expansions. But, it was STARCRAFT! We all wanted to know what the story was, we all wanted to see the new units and have population that was more than just Korean pro-gamers looking for people to murder in MP (seriously, HOW do those pros click that fast?!?). So even with the knowledge the game was incomplete, it still sold a lot of copies. And so did the expansions. Even as people grumbled about spending $60 just for one race and MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally really hate games where paying for microtransactions is the only way to progress. If you can use microtransactions for extra unnecessary things then fine, but paying to progress in a free game is just silly in my opinion.

However, I do agree with scotthespy's argument about none of this really being the responsibility of the game companies. It's unfortunate that creating crappy games with microteansactions is the fastest way to turn a profit, but that's not the game company's fault and they should be free to continue doing it if they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not as if pay to play is truly anything new...

arcade-4f341ed-intro.jpg

However, I do understand that it is being a bit abused nowadays. From my perspective, it is more advantageous to the customer than it is the supplier. The supplier must create a game regardless of the demand, since they are truly only making one product and then selling the copies, which cost nothing. The customer gets to decide what that game is truly worth to them. Those that feel the game is still enjoyable will continue to pay for it, because that is how the law of supply and demand works. At least you can stop paying for the game after $5 or something instead of having to pay $30 and end up only valuing it at $5.

As a side note: I find that Nintendo is starting this trend, but it doesn't actually bother me. In fact, I already downloaded Pokemon Picross, and I'm glad that it is free, however; I would have paid $30-$45 dollars for the game if it was required, because I enjoy Pokemon and I enjoy Picross individually. And yes, this side note is only here so I can talk about Pokemon Picross since I really enjoy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kid should not have access to $10000 without parents' knowledge. If kid does, there's something very wrong with parents that goes far beyond microtransactions in games. (Unless you happen to be absurdly rich and that's your kid's weekly pocket money.)


As long as the game doesn't overdo it, I may or may not buy small things if the game works fine without it and I have money to spare. Does it really matter if I spend it on a movie ticket that gives me two hours of fun, or some game stuff I can enjoy until the gaming device breaks down?


If it's something I have to buy to make progress or even play at all, take the game and stick it you know where. Not gonna play that shit. (Unless you can start out for free and paying for it ends up being roughly the same as just straight up purchasing a game. That works for me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "Freemium" games should be banned, fun or not. They are a scam, and turn people into gambling addicts. They hijack your reward system in your brain, in a similar way meth does, and you become addicted. There is a reason they ban gambling in some countries.

If these games were beatable without the microtransactions, or "Pay to win". Then I would have no problem with it. The only one I have seen that is like that is "Pokemon Shuffle". That is not saying much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...