Microtransactions are not bad for the game industry. They are not an evil corporate invention designed to siphon money from consumers and line the pockets of greedy CEOs. If anything, sales figures and the recent shuddering of major development studios have proven that microtransactions and free-to-play games may actually breathe life into an industry that can no longer be realistically supported by an aging $60.00 per game price model.
Rather than attack the monetization structure, what I’m addressing is the very concept of in-game purchases and how, as a lifelong gamer, I can’t help but take offense to their very existence. It’s important to note, however, that not all microtransactions are created equal. Therefore, for discussion purposes, let’s address the three general categories: Cosmetic, Substantive, and Advantageous.
Initially, I have no real gripe with Cosmetic DLC, which literally only serves to alter appearance. Paying a couple bucks to add a pretty bow to a favorite weapon of destruction grants further customization options for personal expression, thus letting players be the unique snowflakes that they are. Substantive DLC is equally as harmless (unless it bleeds into multiplayer games, but I’ll get to that later), as it adds tangible items such as new weapons, items, missions, quests, or even map locations to an existing game.
Unfortunately these forms of DLC are ripe for perversion, with “Day One” and retail-specific DLC leading the charge. When implemented properly, Cosmetic and Substantive DLC is actually quite beneficial, both for the developer and consumer, prolonging the appeal of a game, while at the same time, ensuring discs stay in consoles and not in used game bins. However, if already completed when a game is released, offering exclusive content to only those who pay a premium price or buy from a specific retailer game, is tantamount to game content ransom and displays a blatant disrespect for the consumer.
The microtransacted DLC I find most troubling is unfortunately also one of the fastest growing trends in the industry. The Advantageous microtransaction, which garnered massive success on mobile platforms, is any in-game purchase made to circumvent an inconvenience, often by way of in-game currency.
All games, from Call of Duty to Tetris, follow a basic formula in which players are presented with a problem that must be solved using the tools provided. The satisfaction achieved from accomplishing this task is what motivates players to remain engaged. Advantageous microtransactions exploit this mental construct of working towards a goal by immediately granting players with the option to skip the arduous mental exercise and instantly receive the sought after reward. Therefore, players are actually buying themselves a shorter, easier experience providing hollow, fleeting satisfaction. When caught up in the drive to accomplish one’s goal, it’s easy to forget that the actual pleasure derived from gaming stems from the act of solving these problems, not the end goal. To go all hippy on you for a second, videogames are about the journey, not the destination, man.
It’s true that Advantageous microtransactions are almost always optional, allowing players to play a game without in-game purchases. However even if ignored, the very existence of the option to skip gameplay to instantly earn the reward completely invalidates the game itself. Why work hard to achieve a goal that anyone else can obtain simply by plunking down a couple bucks, right? If studies connecting videogames to problem solving skills are correct , the increasing trend of forgoing mental energy expenditure and throwing money at a problem is very unsettling.
To those players with iron wills and sturdy purse straps, don’t kid yourselves into thinking you’re pulling one over on the developer by playing a game for free. Often, in fact, the very opposite is true. Free-to-play games are crammed with advertising, and like it or not, even if consciously ignored, advertising works. Corporations don’t offer “club memberships” and coupons because they love their customers, it’s to get people back into their stores. Milk, a product very often purchased in grocery and convenience stores, is always very inconveniently located in the back, ensuring customers walk through the store and are exposed to more advertising and therefore more likely to buy more products. Exposure breeds familiarity, familiarity erodes resistance, and lack of resistance means less apprehension to buy.
Another inevitable side effect of this monetization is an ever-increasing brazen encouragement to buy through actual game design. Facebook games, for example are always free and easily accessible. However, after initially hooking a player with addictive gameplay, games like Plants vs Zombies Adventures literally make advancement impossible without either forcing Advantageous microtransactions, or requiring players to turn into living viral marketing machines, spamming their friend list with game requests, thus increasing odds for potential paying customers. While consumers in favor of Advantageous microstransactions may argue that they simply allow one to skip over tedious tasks, this point, in essence, is in favor of overlooking poor game design as long as it can be corrected by monetary means. Worse yet is when Advantageous purchases bleed into multiplayer games, skewing the playing field while leaving leaderboards and reward structures unchanged. A win is a win; why not bring a rocket launcher to a gun fight, right?
Regardless of how I feel, the undeniable fact is that I am in the minority. The successful proliferation of microtransactions is due to consumer demand. If consumers didn’t buy them, they wouldn’t exist. Perhaps it’s because I am an aging gamer that grew up before the internet, when buying any game ensured that you owned every bit of content it had to offer. Or perhaps, as in music and fashion, it’s inevitable that one generation eventually ceases to understand or accept the trends of the next. My generation may have been the first to grow up with videogames, but it will not be the last. The increasing majority of today’s consumers are second and third generation gamers whose demands are what shape the industry. If they’d rather buy their gaming victories one $0.99 Day One DLC pack at a time, who am I to judge? After all, I did grow up with cheat codes, but at least those were free.
Similar articles from around the web
The prices of some microtransactions is really high and I started working as a professional writer for a lot of years and I know how to earn money but it is really hard for me to spend 100 dollars just to be able to kill robots with preaties gun in the game so after more than just 10 years of gaming I started using payday loan in alberta to handle all my wishlist and be able to donate into my favorite games that I appreciate to play. So, I want to say that developers needed to fix that just to earn more money.
Prices of all of it can be really high sometimes, I can even afford them!
[…] losing your only life, can be immensely enjoyable, especially with friends. While I’m as (if not more) reluctant to accept the free-to-play model as any other gamer of my generation, if more follow […]