I hate this model, still. (Destiny)

by Ragashingo , Official DBO Cryptarch, Thursday, July 23, 2015, 01:55 (3511 days ago) @ Avateur

And yet another very popular and well funded scifi IP used a microtransaction model to Massively great Effect. The reality that it can work and can work well is right in front of you.

Lots of people pointing out to Cody the consensus that ME3 rocks and that the microtransactions worked as proof that microtransactions can work in general, which sort of avoids something. Much like Cody desperately grasping onto a few people who agree with his point in relation to ME3, a lot of others are using ME3, one of maybe a few solid and successful, fun games that implement microtransactions in a mostly well-done way, as some sort of proof that they can work. ME3's particular multiplayer style of gaming happened to fit the scheme. There are an endless supply of other examples that fully back up what Cody is saying. He's dead wrong about ME3, but I have a feeling that he'd be right if microtransactions are truly implemented into Destiny.

No, not "some sort of proof." Proof. Because Mass Effect 3's method largely did work. The distinction between the two matters to me.

That said, you are correct. Microtransactions don't have a bad reputation because most games do great jobs like Mass Effect 3 or Team Fortress 2 (which I've never played but always heard good things about), they have a bad reputation because most games either do a terrible job of implementing microtransaction content or they just straight up abuse microtransactions in an awfully diverse variety of ways. But Cody doesn't acknowledge that any game can do it well. And that's just intellectually dishonest of him when an example of doing it right (or mostly right, as I think the ME3 detractors in this thread do have some valid complaints about the ME3 way of doing things) is the basis of the entire thread.

I do agree that microtransactions would probably be a bad thing for Destiny if nothing else changed. If expansions continued to cost $15 - $40 with that additional revenue stream then something would be very wrong. But what if the future smaller HoW style expansions dropped to $5 and the big TTK ones dropped to $10 because of microtransactions? Or if they became free? For me at least, it would then depend on exactly how the transactions were implemented. If its just people buying funny looking hats then sure, go for it. If it were to be something horrible like you see a lot in the mobile world where you have to pay to get more artificially scarce daily respawns or whatever... then heck no!

I'm firmly in the camp of just raising the base price of games across the board. These games have been launching at $60 for too long. Microsoft bumped Xbox Live pricing, and while there was initial backlash, they're doing just fine. Industry-wide increases in game pricing would be just as fine.

I would agree as long as we are sure that the current "low" selling price is actually hurting the content. And that it's not bad developers or poor budgeting or corporate greed or that it is actually pretty hard to make a great game no matter how much money you have. But even if the current new game price point is too low, can't the argument be made that no matter what price we raise new games to a flow of microtransactions done in a "good" Mass Effect 3 style would allow a developer to provide even more content?