"Microtransactions make that possible"? Was that sarcasm?

by Anton P. Nym (aka Steve) , London, Ontario, Canada, Saturday, March 02, 2013, 07:44 (4073 days ago) @ Beckx

Designing a game a certain way and then adding pay options to get through it faster isn't the only option. Used to be, you got those options as part of a $60 retail title - they didn't sell easy difficulties or the weapons to make it easier as a separate charge. Contra is hard as hell but it shipped with the Konami code, if you were so inclined. Microtransactions don't "make it possible," they monetize it.

Used to be, you could crank out a game in a year with a couple-dozen staff (or less) like Contra. Today, though, expectations on graphics and performance and networking make that impossible for $60/AAA games. If you want to go the Contra route you have to go indy/browser/phone, and you'll get a lot less than $60; these days, something like Contra would be treated as an Angry Birds. (I'm pretty sure I saw a Contra port or knockoff selling for $0.99 somewhere.)

Think for a second: Cody isn't alone in his position. Narcogen and I both agree with Cody. Pete_the_duck has expressed significant concerns about it.

Some, me included, have concerns about how microtransactions could be implemented but don't dismiss them out-of-hand. To repeat, they can be done well or be done poorly like any other aspect of game design.

Option 2 is really a decent option here - liking games and hating the business practices that go with them. Game designers aren't the ones saying "man, this game would be so much better if I could build in more ways to charge people."

Yeah they are, at least the ones from studios that went bust or that can't raise the capital to make their next game anyway.

-- Steve tries to take into account that game designers have to eat and pay the mortgage too.