Many videogames contain microtransactions: small, optional payments that players can make in order to receive items or perks in-game. They're a staple in the mobile market where games are often free, and to make money the developers would otherwise rely exclusively on ad revenue. Free to play computer games also often have microtransactions. One such example is Team Fortress 2 (abbreviated TF2), a team-based first person shooter. Players can choose between nine different classes, each with a set of default weapons and the ability to receive (by random drop) or purchase special weapons from other players via the Steam Market (an item trading marketplace run by Valve, the creators of Team Fortress 2). This model works well in TF2 because the special weapons aren't necessarily better than the defaults, but instead different in a way that modifies the class's play-style and introduces more variation into the game. There are also hats available in the game. With a wide range of style,s they are the most sought-after with many going for hundreds of dollars. The ability to get these weapons without paying a dime also lessens the outrage that is typical with microtransactions.
Some games are affectionately called "Pay to Win" (P2W) by players because of the perceived or actual advantage players who pay get over regular players. Most computer games avoid this accusation by only allowing cosmetic items to be purchased, such as hats, other clothing items, or weapon skins (items that change the look of weapons). Some games, like TF2, skirt the line by making the items available not better but just different. I don't know of any computer games where one can buy items that are objectively superior to others, probably because such a game wouldn't succeed in the market. Mobile games on the other hand have plenty of examples of P2W mechanics, such as being able to buy 'gems' or other such currency in order to speed up progress in the game. This is more accepted because these mobile games are usually free. For other players to be able to buy their way to victory in a game that you already paid money for would add insult to injury.
But even games with only cosmetic items receive flak. A game I've been playing recently is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), and it contains clothing that can be received by opening crates. Relative common in computer games, crates are a system by which players can get special items and experience a bit of the thrill of gambling. Crates containing a random item from a set ranging from low to high value can be bought for in-game credits, real money, or received at random intervals while playing. Sometimes they require a key to open, which are usually available exclusively for real money. Crates that can be purchased are usually cheap, in the range of one to five dollars, but can contain very valuable (and rare) items worth up to hundreds of dollars. Players purchase them in hopes of getting an item worth more than the price they paid for the crate and key. Of course, the items are completely virtual so it's almost all profit for the game developers (minus a small fee paid to the market place).
The crate system in PUBG has drawn controversy for a variety of reasons. The primary probably being the developer's (Bluehole) promise to not add any microtransactions before the game was officially released, as it's currently in 'early access' (a program on Steam that allows in-development games to be bought and played before release). Bluehole claimed the crates were added to pay for the competitive PUBG tournament they planned to hold. However this only garnered them more ire as it seemed a cheap excuse when they had already earned $100 million in revenue. Players also complained that the clothing was not only cosmetic. A game about surviving the longest on an island filled with other players armed to the teeth, stealth is a big component of the game. Clothing can have a huge effect on whether or not you're seen, and thus whether you win or not. There is even camouflage clothing available.
Overall, I think players are fine with microtransactions as long as they don't give an advantage in the game. Those who have money to spend can get cool items to spruce up their character, and those who don't want to spend any don't end up any worse off. I don't mind the hats or weapons in TF2. But when there's an imbalance between the paying and non-paying players, or when the developer breaks a promise, people get pissed. I think that's perfectly understandable. When you pay money for a game you expect to be treated just like any other player. Anything else would be disrespectful.
I agree with what you're saying. If the game itself does cost money, it really is unfair to include any microtransactions that would create an uneven playing field. However, for many free games, typically mobile games, these microtransactions or in-app purchases are an integral part for the success and continuity of the game. Creating an uneven playing field tempts players to become P2W to have that feeling of being the one on top and I'm sad to say that I am a P2W for the mobile game Clash Royale (It was only $20 :( ). I used to get really irritated when people told me I that had no skill after I became P2W, even when I could beat them using an entirely free to play account. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting thing think about while playing a game is what you want to get out of it. Most times when I play games I play them to waste time and have fun, I rarely play them to win. Microtransactions in my opinion are a necessary evil in the video game industry, they allow the dev's to make money and have incentive to continue to develop the game, however the money can often go to their heads and lead to a decline in play quality. A very give/take relationship.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment. However, I think that they are not the worst thing in the world. I think that these days, microtransactions are the thing that people love to hate, and while they are completely stupid, I think that they are one of the least harmful of the various money-grabbing techniques used by video game companies these days. I guess, at least it doesn't really affect the other players. What I mean is that if someone really is dumb enough to pay like 20 bucks for a skin in a game, that's their problem, and it has no impact on everyone else. However, I basically agree with your points here. Also, you should definitely do a post about day-one dlc. If I paid $60 for the game, I would really like to be able to play the complete game!
ReplyDelete