Game Altering Microtransactions in a MP setting - your thoughts?

[BYan]

Gist of it here:


Well with the rise of the microtransaction age we were bound to see some exploitation, and it seems that the horse armor syndrome is rising again, this time over at EA. We've heard about it via several sources already, including a reader, and it appears that the Battlefield: Bad Company Beta lists individual weapons for sale via the XBLM. A total of ten weapons are locked that have text reading "Available for purchase on Xbox Live Marketplace" next to them. The details of this are a bit shaky as of now however, as of those ten weapons, five weapons are listed as simply available for purchase, and five are listed as available in gold edition or for purchase. The gold edition likely refers to the game's collector's edition which sports a faux gold finish and which will apparently have extra content.

Now, whether or not collector's editions having in-game items is a good idea isn't the issue, the issue is the microtransactions in regard to in game items. It isn't really an issue with single player games, as the content purchases of other players cannot effect your experience. But in the case of a multiplayer shooter having more weapons available to those with larger pocket-books just doesn't feel right. With EA experimenting with microtransactions in their new Battlefield Heroes PC game, it would seem only logical that they would continue the experiment in the console realm. But with the PC version's microtransactions based around things other than in-game items that effect balance (EXP, Skins, etc) we're hoping the console side of the experiment fails, and the PC one is widely adopted.


Source: http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/03/21/ea-charging-for-weapons-in-bad-company-beta/

Your thoughts? As gamers, this goes considerably beyond console preferences, since it more or less affects everyone who view it as a hobby - especially those whose interests lie mainly with the MP aspects of a given title.

It appears that if you buy the normal edition of the upcoming Battlefield game, not only will you be robbed of the 5 guns available in the collector's edition (last I checked, a collector's edition was supposed to be an enthusiast's luxury, not a casual gamer's mandatory requirement), but you will have to purchase those 5 guns + 5 more if you want to remain even with your peers in terms of inventory (no telling at this point whether or not the guns are actually more powerful or just different, in either case I don't think players should be robbed of content for purchasing of all things, the normal version of a game).

Can't say I'm all that happy to hear about something like this >:( I'll do my best to steer clear of EA games for the time being if this is going to become the norm. But with the Take 2 takeover all but assured, staying away from EA is going to push me all but completely away from the hobby in general.

Your thoughts?

[dre145]

microtransactions are all the rage in asia, and they are trying it out with the NA market.

Personally I wont support it because it will just let developers know that they can get away with it and soon you'll need to enter your credit card after completing a level on any game to continue on.

But koreans have no problem paying for a pink dress's for thier MMORPGS that dont even enhance your character at all so go figure.

[sfu_lifer]

So long as it doesn't affect the balance of the gameplay (ie super guns that offer a distinct kill advantage), then I don't mind. Usually microtransactions are mostly fluff anyway.

[thechampion116]

i agree with stu_lifer but this is EA we are talking about. Look ow they are trying for a takeover of Take two and trying to buy other companies out.

[FerrisB]

Knowing EA they'll stack the purchase only weapons so you're forced to buy them if you really want to compete.

[Lone_Prodigy]

Isn't EA releasing a Battlefield game for free?

[randomdef]

I don't support micropayments. I also don't support EA.

[mrcantrell]

I like the idea of not buying a game, but paying for each level or section that I finish... or paying a small upfront fee and paying based on how much of the game I finish. Personally I find that a lot of the games I buy I never end up finishing, or at least completeing to 100%.

I know it's not really what they're saying, but I like the potential.

[mahdi]

Yea, well I DON'T like the idea of having to PAY for the "full" version game, then having them charge micropayments.

Isn't this what they do for those "free" flash MMO's like adventure quest??

[d_jedi]

Any game that tries to pull this BS will not end up in my game library, period.

[BYan]

For what it's worth, I'm all for DLC - there are some real gems that otherwise might not have been made possible. But alas, it's still a relatively young experiment, and thus, you'll often have on the one hand, the dedicated enthusiasts who view it as a golden opportunity to extend and expand the life of games in general, but as well on the other hand, a different kind of enthusiast who's blinded by the amount of money it's possible to wring out of gamers for negligible amounts of work and questionable tactics (Namco I'm looking at you!).

Hopefully something like this gets plugged up before it gets serious. Seems like such a waste of a good thing to me.

[Ziggy007]

I think it is a terrible idea if the purchase content is anything else besides cosmetic for cool factor. Allowing payment for in game enhancement is just a bad tactic.

Figures this would come from EA games though, one of the worst run game developers in term of game quality. Their testing is obviously non existant with the ammount of bugs in games that they ship, and the wait for software fixes is endless (and usually create two new problems for each one they fix).

[jedijome]

i'll play the basic game. if they expect me to spend 5 bucks for a gun they can forget it.

[mrelusive]

Sorry if I derail this a bit. I'll just say this that, once again, a lot of people have overblown another DLC situation with EA. I'm NOT referring to this thread, however.

Yes, there will be new weapons for purchase as microtransactions in Bad Company. But what are these "weapons" actually? Anyone remember the preorder bonus you got if you preordered Battlefield 2142 from Best Buy? You would get a free weapon unlock once the game game out. That's all EA ever referred it to; weapon, weapon, weapon.

Well, it was actually just a reskin of the regular SCAR 11 weapon. It had no other effect on gameplay other than looking "cooler" (and actually having a worse scope than the default gun).

I just found it kind of ironic that you got the console players bickering so much about these Bad Company weapons, on a platform that feeds on DLC. Then you got Battlefield Heroes on the PC, which also has microtransactions, but on a platform where DLC has yet to be widely-accept. Both of which have weapons that won't have a tangible effect on gameplay (yet to be seen with BF:BC, but I have yet to seen a shred of evidence showing that these weapons are more than just a reskin). Which fanbase does the most complaining about their platform's Battlefield DLC?

Anyway, back on topic. I'm all for microtransactions, as long as there's no tangible difference in multiplayer gameplay, such as higher ammo capacity and all that jazz. Would I pay for DLC that would make my skinny-ass soldier look like a roided-human from an Epic game with full body armor? Yeah. Should that body armor let me absorb more damage without going down? No, and I wouldn't support such DLC.

[Tijuana]

You'll probably be able to download the updates or whatever you want to call them for free, then I wouldn't mind paying a small fee :razz: