Take Two: All future games will feature microtransactions

[FRISH]

Tbh it's one thing that makes me wonder whether to find another hobby. The other being general toxicity. Microtransactions or DLC isn't necessarily bad in itself, but I have noticed that game quality seems to be impacted as a result, and the more common it becomes, the more tempting it will be to make things less enjoyable unless you pay, in which case the fun is pretty much sucked out.

[pp05]

Microtransaction is the future of digital money/tech.

From a game developers point of view, you're better off with lots of microtransactions than a few higher fees that will eventually be like paying for the game twice.

[Saracen]

Microtransaction is the future of digital money/tech.

From a game developers point of view, you're better off with lots of microtransactions than a few higher fees that will eventually be like paying for the game twice.

Perhaps, but that entirely depends on the volume of microtransactions, and the number of upfront buys you lose. It'll also affect cash-flow, deferring it.

[kalniel]

Perhaps, but that entirely depends on the volume of microtransactions, and the number of upfront buys you lose. It'll also affect cash-flow, deferring it.

Offset by making people pay for 'early access'

Of course, the golden model is to make people pay for early access microtransactions. Here's looking at you Star Citizen

[spacein_vader]

Don't know why anyone would seem surprised, this was guaranteed long ago. GTA V is one of the worst games I've seen for ripping people off. Pay for fake money, then have them devalue it in various ways.

Shares, insurance, etc. The items in game aren't even remotely reasonably price either. The worst thing of all is the largest portion of their player base is under the legal age, this is how they make this much, just like COD and EA games. market to kids, empty mom and dads pockets

I disagree with you on the 2 points highlighted. While GTA Vs multiplayer cash grab is pretty obnoxious it is far from the worst example primarily because if you just buy it and spend no more there are hundreds of hours of critically acclaimed single player content from a fully fledged campaign to the smaller side quests, races and the like. Its entirely possible for GTA V to be great value if you're not buying it for the online element.
On your second point, while this is a real problem (especially in games like FIFA that are really aimed at kids,) it isn't for GTA. The game is an 18 certificate, anyone under that age shouldn't be playing it. If they are that's on the parents who allow them to, not Rockstar or Take 2.

Tbh it's one thing that makes me wonder whether to find another hobby. The other being general toxicity. Microtransactions or DLC isn't necessarily bad in itself, but I have noticed that game quality seems to be impacted as a result, and the more common it becomes, the more tempting it will be to make things less enjoyable unless you pay, in which case the fun is pretty much sucked out.

I'm not at the point of changing hobby but I have changed how I approach it. The GOOD side of the modern (PC) gaming marketplace is there is a lot more variety out there, with games filling niches that would have been left 20 years ago in a boxed retail environment. Sometimes those niches are genres, sometimes they're DRM policies (think GOG,) and now they extend to different pricing models. Microtransactions, loot crates, DLC, season passes, subscriptions, Humble-type bundles, pay what you want, free older games as loss leaders, all of these add colour to the market and allow me to differentiate by what I will and will not accept. What it HAS changed is I very rarely buy a game on release day (and certainly NEVER pre-order!) I read up on how a game is received and if/how it utilises the above. I often wait for GOTY editions with the DLC bundled and have watchlists set up on Is There Any Deal.

Perhaps, but that entirely depends on the volume of microtransactions, and the number of upfront buys you lose. It'll also affect cash-flow, deferring it.

This. It's a balancing act, and each publisher and game will have a different audience and a different tipping point.

Offset by making people pay for 'early access'

Of course, the golden model is to make people pay for early access microtransactions. Here's looking at you Star Citizen

Nobody is making people pay for either of those things. Companies are making it an option and some people are choosing to take that option. Everybody's value judgements will differ.

[kalniel]

Nobody is making people pay for either of those things. Companies are making it an option and some people are choosing to take that option. Everybody's value judgements will differ.

Er, you don't get early access for some titles without paying. That's what I mean by 'making'. Of course, all games are luxury items that you aren't being forced to play at all. But some charge for the pleasure of having you test the game for them and help their early cash flow at the same time.

[Saracen]

Er, you don't get early access for some titles without paying. That's what I mean by 'making'. Of course, all games are luxury items that you aren't being forced to play at all. But some charge for the pleasure of having you test the game for them and help their early cash flow at the same time.

Each to his/her own as regards early access. I guess like so many things, if you want it and are prepared to pay for it, then we must presume you consider doing so worthwhile. Note - this is a generic 'you', not you, Kal.

Personally, even before my gaming was curtailed by Steam, I'd long given up buying games on release, and instead bought them either 6-12 months later at greatly reduced price, or waited for the £3-£4 budget version. In large part, though, this is because I don't give a stuff about online gaming, so I've no need to buy the latest fad game just to 'join in'.