Everyone has choices. (Destiny)

by Kahzgul, Tuesday, October 24, 2017, 22:45 (2590 days ago) @ MacAddictXIV

Charge more than 60 dollars for your game!

It’s been established by microtransactions that many many people already do not mind paying more than 60 bucks for a game. Even more buy deluxe editions.

Charge more, and make what would have been microtransactional content available to all.

It’s even time for a price increase. Adjusting for inflation games are the cheapest they have ever been, yet they are also the most expensive to develop.

You're not wrong conceptually. I would prefer that but... it's getting the consumer to agree to that that is harder. While we may be fine doing this in practice, the 59.95 is more appealing than 60 in our heads. $30 down with $3/month over 10 months is more appealing to many. When people are figuring out where to spend that cash, $80 vs $60 is a meaningful difference in upfront cost. I would venture that the negative press (who has the audacity to think their product is worth that much more?)for such a value, or the perceived value (I could buy my niece this $60 game of this $80 game) would cut into enough profits that future endeavors would be at risk.

Also, I can pay for a $60 game and not pay for Microtransactions.

But you have to suffer the “frictions” designed into the game.

Wait. Really? This fits within your definition of suffering?

I might not have chosen the word “suffering”, but I do think that Cody’s point is valid.

As I’ve explained in other posts, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring all the microtransactions that clutter up many modern games. But many devs/publishers have already shown that they are willing to intentionally create content that isn’t fun, then offer the ability to buy your way past that content. So players who choose not to make extra purchases are stuck “suffering through” gameplay systems designed to make them want to skip ahead.

I agree that there is a certain of level of abusing the players by adding friction into a game for Microtransactions. But I also believe that that isn't completely one sided in the "suffering" category. It seems that a lot of people have expectations of what a game should be and if there are "frictions" added, as Cody puts it, that it destroys that game. I would say that yes, that sucks depending on the game. I also hear of a lot of self imposed suffering that goes along with games, and it's very easy to blame RNG and Microtransactions on it's cause. Yes, I generalized that a little because it's way to early to quantify it exactly, but I've heard it in this forum before. Take it as a hunch :)

But I hate hearing this "every Microtransaction is at it's base evil" sort of thing like it's the devil clawing at your back, no matter how good intentioned the developer is that it's going to get you someday. Yes, the whole point of MT's is to make money. But they don't always have to be suffering, even if they are intended that way (I highly doubt any company wants to actually cause their players to suffer).

The best example I have of this is an iPhone game call Marvel Contest of Champions. It is a free game that has horrible amounts of MT's in the game, this includes the classic "energy wall". However these MT's are both an annoyance and a boon to me. I love this game, I love playing it, but if I wasn't actually locked out from unrestricted playing the game, it would probably be unhealthy the amount of time I would spend on it. I personally have spent like 5-10 bucks on the game in the last couple years but I could have spent thousands. I treat the game, without paying money, as the game in its whole and any other payed feature a bonus. Once you see it like that, it's actually a very healthy and fun game to play. However most people don't have that sort of view on games.

I'd argue that most people *do* actually have a healthy view of games and microtransactions. That's not where the abuse comes in. It's the 0.15% of players who make up 50% of MT revenue that are being abused. They have a disease called addiction and the games industry and our legislatures are both doing nothing to protect them.

I understand that the game industry isn't helping as much as they should. But I get the feeling that it's way to easy to blame the game industry for peoples problems. I I'm not trying to be an ass to people with addiction problems, but people also have to be accountable for themselves. If they are playing games that is only fulling their disability then they are also doing it to themselves. And if they can't help but put themselves in that position, then they need to seek outside help.

Again, I don't want to sound harsh, but I have my own learning disabilities and I have had to deal with that. And although I appreciate that institutions have helped a little with that, I can't blame institutions for not catering to me while 95% of the rest of the population is fine by it. Everyone is accountable to themselves.

Now, I know that ultimately MT's/gambling are a risky (no pun intended) thing, but for some people it's also entertainment and we can't lose sight from that as well. It's also a source of income.

To sum it up, we keep using words like "abuse" which, for me, makes me immediately think that Developers are abusing gamers. I think this goes a little far. The very use of the word would imply that developers are intentionally using MT's to harm gamers. I'm not saying that all MT's are right, but we have to keep an objective head when thinking about this. This is two sided.

1. MT's can be abused
2. MT's can be used to facilitate entertainment
3. MT's is used for income
4. Players can put themselves in a situation to be abused
5. Players have the ability to create the environment they play in

*Edit*
I don't want this to sound like a bash on either side. This hits a cord with me personally and I hate hearing about the helplessness of people with disabilities as if they just have to succumb it. People have willpower and the urge to overcome their disabilities. And I honestly want to hear what other people think on this topic. This is just my view and it's the best way that I can express it :D

An unfortunate effect of addiction is that people who suffer from it cannot control themselves. While that may seem similar to your learning disabilities, you are able to recognize that you have them and take actions to counteract them. Addicts can't do that. Often, they completely fail to recognize that any problem exists. Even when they do know something is wrong, they are often helpless to resist it. If you're interested in seeing how bad it can get, check out the TV show Hoarders. These people suffer from a collection addiction (most of them, anyway) and seeing the depth of denial is deeply disturbing. The disability of an addict is defined by their helplessness to act against their addiction.

I don't want to sound like I'm hand-waving your points, because they're well reasoned. It's that addiction is a unique disease in that it erodes one's ability to self-determine, and in light of that fact, I hope you can see how asking an addict to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is a futile effort.

You also seem to be saying "even if 0.15% of people are prone to uncontrollable spending when faced with microtransactions, the other 99.85% of us are totally fine." It's a worthy argument from a Utilitarian standpoint. Not just most, but the *vast majority* of people are totally fine in a MT-dominated gamespace. I understand that. What concerns me is that MT is an unregulated space that is ripe for abuse (I am not saying it is being abused nor am I saying it was designed with malice aforethought) and that, because we know that some small percentage of players is prone to massive spending accounting for 50% of the revenue that MT represents for a game, we should take steps to protect those players.

I'm sorry that you feel like the word "abuse" is being thrown around accusatorily here. As I said above:

I think that, in this thread, there's a degree of conflating my passion against codified in-game gambling for thinking Destiny is the worst offender out there. Destiny is, as far as microtransactions go, not that bad at all. They are strictly cosmetic, you can earn a few rolls for free and with relative ease, and they occasionally let you direct buy some stuff. It's really not a terrible implementation.

That being said, I think this is still codified gambling and comes with the same risks. How do we know they aren't using metrics to see which emotes or ships people are willing to spend spend spend to roll for and then making those even less likely to appear, or so they won't appear at all until you've spent $40 or more? I don't think they're doing that, but I don't know for sure that they aren't and there is no law regulating Bungie or anyone else from doing that. Microtransactions are a dangerous wild-west frontline of consumerism and I oppose them based on how easily they can be abused, regardless of whether or not that abuse is intentional. Again, destiny seems pretty tame on the microtrans front, and yet it is still an abusable system and we have scientific evidence that in-game microtransactional gambling is addictive and abusive. Destiny isn't AIDS, it isn't Cancer; it's a little sniffle. But even a little sniffle can turn into pneumonia if it is not treated. I'd rather get a system that you can't abuse (see Titanfall 2) where you get what you pay for each and every time.