Cody asked me to bookmark his promise.

When I said that, I did not ever expect Bungie to actually do it. I distinctly recall them promising they wouldn't ever add microtransactions. It's increasingly difficult to actually find games that do not have them. I purchased MGS V and was shocked when it had them. I was shocked to find out Last of Us had them in PvP.

I just wish I could enjoy a game without being conflicted about unethical business models, microtransactions that decrease the quality of the experience, or the practices and manner in which the game developer treats their creatives. It's just very sad and it sucks a lot, especially because the Taken King was a huge step in the right direction.

He does say cosmetics, you're right. Time for the ultimate defense.

Yeah, but still.

Cody asked me to bookmark his promise.

I have a few weeks left before the store hits…

This is all part of a new plan that could start as early as this month, according to two people familiar with Destiny’s development. Rather than sell big expansion packs like they did last year, Bungie is planning on giving out quests and missions for free, sources say. This will likely involve big drops every few months until the fall of 2016 but could also include trickles of smaller stuff throughout the year.

That means the game’s next paid expansion will be Destiny 2 in the fall of 2016, as has been known for a while now. That’ll be $60.

Sources or not - this seems speculative intill proven otherwise.

Perhaps, but that is the trend the industry is moving towards. Halo 5 is doing it, Evolve had shifted gears towards it, I guarantee Gears and Titanfall will go that way too.

This is all part of a new plan that could start as early as this month, according to two people familiar with Destiny’s development. Rather than sell big expansion packs like they did last year, Bungie is planning on giving out quests and missions for free, sources say. This will likely involve big drops every few months until the fall of 2016 but could also include trickles of smaller stuff throughout the year.

That means the game’s next paid expansion will be Destiny 2 in the fall of 2016, as has been known for a while now. That’ll be $60.

Sources or not - this seems speculative intill proven otherwise.

Yeah, I hope everyone here has enough common sense to understand that.

"Kotaku says" being an important part of my title line.

And EA is notoriously abusive with its business practices. If they can do it, Bungie can, too.

Still, based on Destiny's advertising history, I'm tempering my expectations.

To be fair, the Red Bull mission will be free in January, and it was supported by microtransaction.

Warframe proves you wrong every single month

Warframe also kind of sucks dude… Just my opinion. Real substantial content generation for a game like Destiny is much more involved.

The gaming community blows your mind? Gosh, how could people possibly have a problem with paying extra on top of their minimum $60 game?

But that content wasn't IN the $60 game. It is now, and you have to pay for it. How is that wrong?

That's not the issue. Paying for more content is fine. Paying for more content is great. Cosmetics are not real content.

Don't act like I'm some "entitled gamer" whinging 'cause I want free stuff. Microtransactions in paid games are abhorrent. They mean resources that could be used elsewhere being wasted on paid content. Or they mean content that should be included in the game being portioned up and sold separately. Either way they cheapen the art of the game.

I don't see how it means that at all. I hate the "that should have been included in the game" argument. It's stupid. It's like saying all the map packs that came out for Halo should have been included in the game from the start.

No. Those were playable expansions. Cosmetics have always been unlockable. I don't actually agree that they should have been in-game all along if they weren't there to start with, but adding them solely to sell as microtransactions is not so cool. Regardless, developing these cosmetic items are taking resources away from people making real content. Also the whole "it cheapens the entire medium" thing, but I realise not everyone cares about games as art.

The fact is, the new emotes weren't in the game. You wouldn't have had them anyway if they didn't release them as paid content. So now you still won't have them. You are affected zero percent, you can't convince me otherwise.

Of course I'm affected. A new economy has been added to the game. According to Kotaku this will fund further content. That means future content is intrinsically tied to the success of these microtransaction. It also incentivises further microtransactions, which is a fun slippery slope to play with.

If Destiny was free, I'd be a-okay with Microtransactions (devs have to make money somehow, and cosmetics are a great way to fund a free-to-play game). But I've already paid for Destiny. Twice. Plus £70 of DLC.

How is that relevant? I don't care how many times you bought the game. That's on you, not Bungie.

Did you not read what I said? In Free-To-Play games cosmetic microtransactions are often the devs only source of income - they're acceptable because the game itself is free and the microtransactions fund the game. Destiny is Premium content. I've already paid for it. The devs don't need to sell microtransactions in order to be profitable. Completeky relevant.

I was searching for a way to say exactly this.

Wanting extra content for free is the definition of entitled.

How silly of me, I hadn't realised cosmetic emotes weee the equivalent of part 2 of a movie.

There is no need to act like you are an entitled gamer, the content of the post does it on its own.

Don't you dare. First off, ad hominem doesn't help anyone. Second, let's talk about "gamer entitlement". People throw that phrase around as catch-all belittlement any time someone has an issue with a dev or publisher, particularly in regards to tgeir business practices. It's great, because it makes a person feel small and makes their opinions seem invalid without actually saying anything. It's not even relevant if you read the content of my post.

If I was entitled I'd be complaining that I don't get these items for free (or that I've paid for the game, where's my Hawkmoon I paid for?). But all I've talked about is how it's bad business.

We talk a lot about gamer entitlement, but it's only ever used as an insult. It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and is usually just a way of saying "shut up and take it like a man". It's funny, because gamers actually are entitled to certain qualities and services when they make a purchase. Now that's not relevant to this discussion, but it's something to remember.

What is relevant to this conversation is that either you didn't read it properly, you jumped to conclusions, or both. And then from there, instead of a decent conversation you jumped into personal attacks. Against a stranger. Because he dared to have a different opinion to you.

So next time, get the f*ck outta here with your "entitled" shit. It does nothing but make you look bad.

As I explained earlier, the free content you get will be of lower quality than a more substantial paid release almost by definition.

I'll take that bet, too. We're using The Dark Below as the standard to measure against.

As long as this stuff is 100% optional, 100% cosmetic, then what's the harm? I'm the kind of person who will gladly spend a buck or two every few months if it lets my guardian do silly new dance moves that make me laugh. And for those who aren't interested, well, how often did you visit Tess anyway? :)

Yep, as a poor person who doesn't like dancing, this does not affect me in the slightest.

It will affect you.

You will be getting more content for free, because some folks decided to shell out monies for cosmetic items that don't hurt you.

Win/win all around. :)

Unless you're Cody, and for some reason cosmetic microtransactions are the devil.

As I explained earlier, the free content you get will be of lower quality than a more substantial paid release almost by definition.

That is not a guarantee. If these microtransactions allow Bungie to keep X number of people hired to work on missions, then WHY oh why would the quality be lower? If the missions somehow depended on your dance moves, then maybe I could see how insidiously these moves will affect the mission quality.

When games are supported by microtransactions, there's a fairly steady and predictable income stream with which to pay employees, scale the business, and support the game.

When they're supported by single lump sums, there's every incentive to rush the game out the door to get that money instead of giving the game the polish it deserves.

Are the shitty games that abuse addiction to bilk people out of thousands of dollars? Hell yes there are. Is Destiny that? Well, it does use a lot of shitty addiction models to bilk you out of your playtime, but it does not (yet) abusively bilk you out of your money. Only time will tell. As long as the micros are cosmetic and do not affect gameplay, I 100% support them.

So far the microtransaction games I've played include Warframe, Path of Exile, and Hearthstone, and all three of those are friggin' awesome.

Where'd you get that cool cape? Oh I bought it with real money. Oh. Cool story bro.

Except they're selling emotes, not capes.

Ah, technicalities....

To Cody's point: yes, I think the original sell is that we'd each be a unique snowflake, with wildly differing play styles, looks, and abilities based on the unique gear we found. In general, I think this actually holds up pretty well.

Unique gear (as a form of identity) doesn't really exist around here....we pretty much converge on (obsess over) getting the best gear. The internet knows all, so we do too. And we don't stop until we get all we know about. Exceptions are things some people can't actually do (light house) and I think that stuff serves as a nice badge of honor for those that can.

To me, dance emotes and the like just allows me to choose my own stupidity. Hence my opinion: no harm no foul.

As long as this stuff is 100% optional, 100% cosmetic, then what's the harm?

The harm is that now instead of focusing on big, fun, tightly integrated game changing releases like The Taken King, the focus will be on free story missions that will not hit a critical mass to be interesting. There is a bigger picture.

Did paying $20 per DLC yield big, fun, tightly integrated game changing releases last year? I'd say no, for the most part. TDB and HoW were mostly "more of the same". It took a full year to create TTK. These free missions and quests are going to fill the gap between now and the next major content release, be it another major expansion or Destiny 2. The big difference this time around is that the quality of TTK's missions is much higher on average. I'd be just fine with "more of the same", as long as the new quests are as good as TTK's missions.

You are right about the previous two dlcs, which just means it will be worse. That means every active player has to spend on average 20 bucks on cosmetic content. Per dlc release. That seems fantastically unlikely, which means what you do get will be worse than Dark Below. You think Tess is going to fund a storyline and series of quests leading up to a Raid? Not happening.

What you're saying goes against the facts of how "free to play" models work.

When you release major DLC packs ($15-$20) you make more per sale, but you sell to far fewer people. My guess is 20%-30% of the people who bought Destiny went on to buy TDK, even fewer bought HoW (I'm talking before the TTK bundle).

When you have low cost purchases ($1-$5), you make less per sale, but you sell WAY more of them. 50%-75% of your players are likely to buy something at some point. And of those players, there are the 1%-5% who buy EVERYTHING. These "whales" as they're called generate huge income, in addition to all the little sales from the rest of the population.

Now consider the positives to the game: all the new content is free. That means everyone who has the game has all the same content. No more splintering of the fan base, which has been the bane of console multiplayer games since Halo 3. Everyone has everything, which keeps the community engaged and playing together for longer.

Live Team seems to be the term Bungie uses for the group that does bug fixes and minor additions to the current live product. Things as big as adding in the Fireteam / Public chat feature were probably done by the Live Team. This is in contrast to the larger team working on whatever expansion comes next. The Taken King was not a Live Team project, for instance, if I understand the division correctly.

What does the live team do and what are they responsible for? Genuine question. If they aren't making content than the benefits are even more dubious.

My understanding is the Live team is working on maintaining the active game we are currently playing. In the past that has included playlist/gametype updates, balance tweaks, etc. Luke Smith mentioned in a recent interview that Bungie has found a way to expand the live team to do more than ever before. It looks like this is what he was referring to: using micro transactions to fund a live team that will now be doing ongoing content production to fill the gap between major releases.

(JK, we know you won't do it).

You are correct. There's no reason to delete characters in a flashy manner. If / when I ever really DO quit, it will be quietly without much fanfare.

Heh.

Ha ha.

Hee hee hoho ehhh.

a Ha. Ha HA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You won't. Because for all your talk, you don't have the balls.

You like this game.

Of course I like this game. If I didn't it'd be easy to stop.

It's not, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. I'd prefer not to be painted as chicken little here.

And I'm not trying to do that. Seriously.

I just really don't think this is an issue at all. I seriously don't think it would be harmful if Bungie did sell Motes of Light, or Sparks, or whatever. As long as they don't do the obviously bad things like gating unless you pay. As long as they don't make Motes drop less often if you don't pay. Things like that.

Also, I don't see them as attempting to cash in on people's OCD or anything. I don't mean this callously, but if you literally can't prevent yourself from spending money just to complete a collection of digital (useless) items in Destiny, or just to fit in with your friends, you really have some issues and need to evaluate the things you're doing. I truly don't see how that's Bungie's problem. It's not their obligation to prevent you from doing stupid things. I also don't see this as encouraging that, though. It's about self control and how you value your money and time.

Here's hoping Destiny beats the odds, but until it does I reserve the right to be disgusted.

Be suspicious. Be cautious. Be worried, even. I am. But getting disgusted at this point is kinda silly. There will be plenty of time for justified disgust and anger if things do go badly.

This is historically false. Look at Call of Duty, where it started with cosmetic microtransactions, and where it is now. They currently hurt the franchise, but they aren't going anywhere.

Do the community like them? I'm not that deep in the CoD communities, so I really don't know. And is Black Ops 3 continuing the same transaction model, or it being dropped because the community doesn't like it? (Black Ops 3 is the one coming out this year, right?)

Argue slippery slopes all you want, but if the game suffers for micro-transactions, then micro-transactions likely won't survive. If the community benefits from them instead, then I consider complaints limited on a scale of merit. But you don't harm a consumer by providing them additional choices, benefits, or expanded services that they (in the royal they) have been asking for.

This is historically false. Look at Call of Duty, where it started with cosmetic microtransactions, and where it is now. They currently hurt the franchise, but they aren't going anywhere.

Terrible example. Like, laughably bad example.

You do know that there are three developers that make Call of Duty, right?

Treyarch had the Cosmetic microtransactions (weapon skins) back in Black Ops 2. They gave you no advantage, and Sammy and I supported them by buying quite a few of those skins.

In Black Ops 3, they still have cosmetic microtransactions, but have also been able to give players a Paint Shop, where they can fully customize all of their weapons and tools for free, with 64 art layers per side (192 total layers) on each of their items. Not only that, but they clearly spent every cent wisely, since the game is looking to be pretty huge in ambition, scope, and scale on a level that the other two development teams struggle to keep up with (Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer had the non-cosmetic microtransactions, and their playerbases scurried off in droves).

I generally hate Call of Duty games, but Treyarch always gets them right, and they are the only team that has been pushing the product forward, without making people feel that they need to spend more money to keep up. I went ahead and not only ordered the collector's edition, but will probably also buy some skins, because they went through the trouble of making sure we get a Theater mode (which the other devs gave up on).

Plus, even though I don't play Call of Duty games for the multiplayer, I'm not exactly bad at this one:

So yeah, that "example" only further supports the good things that players get from Microtransactions.

And that's without even mentioning the four-player campaign, the four-player Zombies mode, eSports tools, and tons of other features that we got sneak peeks at during the Beta...