True Achievements writer MRBLACKMAGIK has an editorial about the rapidly (and radically) changing definition of "DLC", especially the surprising growth of different franchises instilling microtransactions. And guess which game was first on their mind? Furthermore, guess who was second?

I found the article very interesting, as it made me think about how DLC worked in the past, and how the future could turn out.

What is your piece?

I agree with him, mostly.

I'd much rather have the single player DLC junk and pay for it. But, it has quite a lot to do with me rather than what's actually good or bad. For some players, like coldairfilter, who only plays crucible, or my friend Jon, who also only plays multiplayer, this free DLC stuff for smaller maps or customization options, this free DLC system they're doing is nothing short of a godsend. They get more out of it, it doesn't split the playerbase, and it costs them no money.

But to me, I get next to nothing out of it, I couldn't care less about the split playerbase, and, while it costs me no money, it sometimes means I don't get the ability to buy something I might have been able to buy otherwise.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, along with a few other things.

I'm sort of split on this issue. It all depends on how it's handled. I'm okay with microtransactions, so long as I can buy exactly the item I want for a set price. If there's RNG involved, I'm out. I'm not going to gamble my money away. More and more, it's starting to feel like most multiplayer games only exist to get their players to buy in to the slot machine.

Games are really expensive now, though, and the market is more crowded than ever before. So I understand why publishers and developers feel the need to do it. We're at a weird spot where games are actually relatively cheap, but they still feel expensive. And they are, I guess--$60 is a lot of cash. But with development costs skyrocketing and the price of games not moving, it's no surprise we see devs go the microtransaction route to make money before their games are forgotten for the next one in line. I do often wonder what the split is for microtransactions, though? How much of that money goes to the devs, and how much goes to the publisher? I think it makes a difference if that money is helping a studio stay afloat between projects or something or if it's just lining the pockets of a suit.

I also have to wonder how episodic games factor into the equation. I'm not caught up at all, but I love the way the new Hitman game is going. I've only got the first two chapters, but being episodic has done absolute wonders for that game. We're getting new levels at a good pace, with plenty of content packed into each one to keep us occupied for the month between releases. I really wonder how front-loaded the development of those levels was, because I could see something similar working for Destiny if they fixed their production pipeline and could actually put stuff out at a good pace. Imagine getting something like the equivalent of one planet's worth of content every other month or something along those lines. I guess that's a different discussion, but I do wonder how much keeping an active influx of cash every month for the new Hitman level has affected the devs. Is that a good situation for them, or would it have been better to just finish the game and get full price up front?

I also have to wonder if rising development costs means we'll see the return of the mid-tier game. Stuff like the new Ratchet and Clank at $40. I'd love to see that become a trend. Not everything needs to be The Witcher 3.

In the end, I think microtransactions are at least partly just a symptom of a larger problem in the industry, in that developers (both as a studio organization and individually) seemingly have little job security. It's just part of that equation between development costs, keeping a studio open, a crowded market, etc.

I think it's only a matter of time before the industry sees pretty major reform, and who knows what things will look like then. Until then, the only way to combat microtransactions is to not buy them. They're certainly not going away anytime soon, but that doesn't mean you have to be party to them.

Disclaimer: This entire direction of the industry makes me salty.

If you pay for shitty little cosmetic changes with no actual gameplay content, that's what the studio is going to make more of. Pay for DLC, and that's what they'll make more of.

Personally, I hate them both.

Give me a finished fucking game the first time. Then, if you want to sell me more, give me a finished fucking expansion.

To date, the only game I've ever played that actually delivered on the promise of microtransactions funding content (and that wasn't a card game) was Mass Effect 3. The free MP DLC was amazing, it was regularly released, and it got better when the DLC sales went up. Everyone else has been suckling at the teat of greed and just spoon feeding the barest minimum of content in order to make people think there was something about to come down the pipe.

The real cynic in me says SRL isn't coming back because not enough people bought the microtransaction shit from it, so whoever was in charge decided "fuck you guys," took their toy and left. Because it was added "for free" Bungie has a right to remove it from the game, too, right?

Your microtransaction dollars are renting poor quality content. They're not buying shit.

Wow I'm grumpier than usual today.

Disclaimer: This entire direction of the industry makes me salty.

If you pay for shitty little cosmetic changes with no actual gameplay content, that's what the studio is going to make more of. Pay for DLC, and that's what they'll make more of.

Personally, I hate them both.

Give me a finished fucking game the first time. Then, if you want to sell me more, give me a finished fucking expansion.

To date, the only game I've ever played that actually delivered on the promise of microtransactions funding content (and that wasn't a card game) was Mass Effect 3. The free MP DLC was amazing, it was regularly released, and it got better when the DLC sales went up. Everyone else has been suckling at the teat of greed and just spoon feeding the barest minimum of content in order to make people think there was something about to come down the pipe.

The real cynic in me says SRL isn't coming back because not enough people bought the microtransaction shit from it, so whoever was in charge decided "fuck you guys," took their toy and left. Because it was added "for free" Bungie has a right to remove it from the game, too, right?

Your microtransaction dollars are renting poor quality content. They're not buying shit.

Wow I'm grumpier than usual today.

Your anger is solid--things in the gaming industry are making changes that we as a community don't like! And your reasoning about bad microtrans leading to worse ones actually makes a lot of sense. It is indeed far too easy to c/p some cosmetic junk into the system and make a bunch of money off it, and I've come to realize that's exactly what they're doing.