Random thoughts - microtransactions
I read a bunch of different stuff. Eliza posted a little blurb to her ell-jay some time ago that she was writing for Kotaku. I clicked the link, read a few things, and liked what I saw. So I started reading it more regularly. Not all the time, but when I have a moment and need a distraction, it's usually got something I find interesting.
Anyway. One of the posts today got me thinking. The gist was that some random game is coming out with a collectors edition, and that edition will include a token card or whatever, with some seekrit code that lets you download a special map on Xbox live that regular joes (read: People who kept their extra $10) don't get, or have to pay for separately. (You also get some other stuff with the collectors edition)
This lead to the following comment from the Kotaku poster:
-----------------------------
And this is what microtransactions invariably mean: content that gets cut out of the retail version of the game to be sold to you for a few extra bucks later. I suppose developers should take what money they can get, but it sits poorly for me, and I wish the rest of you people would stop supporting the model. The obvious end result of this is buying every asset of a game seperately.
-----------------------------
In general I'm not in favor of microtransactions. I feel the same way the commenter feels. It's incentive for a developer/publisher to cut the game up, and try and "up-sell" you, etc. When they use their powers for good, it seems like it could be a good system. Guitar Hero, and similar games are a good use of the technology. They deliver a full game at launch, but then can deliver mini-content packs pretty much continuously. I don't feel like they'll skimp on the main game, and the content packs add appropriate new value to justify the microtransaction. This extra maps available at launch via microtransactions smacks of using their powers for evil. Maybe it's just me...
Anyway. What really struck me though, was his parting thoughts. "The obvious end result of this is buying every asset of a game seperately." This actually doesn't sound that bad. Maybe we aren't taking microtransactions far enough. I can't even begin to count the number of games throughout my lifetime that I've started, played through 5-50% of the game, and just walked away from. The mind reels... what if I only had to pay for the percentage of the game that I actually played...
Buy the first level of a game, and when it's shit, walk away. $2 later, I still have $48 in my pocket. Doom 3 for me, should have been about a $25 game. The same for half-life 2. It's not that those games weren't great, because they were. I just didn't have the attention span. Space Rangers 2 on the other hand, probably would have cost me $250, but that is another story...
Anyway, just me rambling. This system is obviously bad for developers/publishers and good for consumers, so it'll never be implimented.
Anyway. One of the posts today got me thinking. The gist was that some random game is coming out with a collectors edition, and that edition will include a token card or whatever, with some seekrit code that lets you download a special map on Xbox live that regular joes (read: People who kept their extra $10) don't get, or have to pay for separately. (You also get some other stuff with the collectors edition)
This lead to the following comment from the Kotaku poster:
-----------------------------
And this is what microtransactions invariably mean: content that gets cut out of the retail version of the game to be sold to you for a few extra bucks later. I suppose developers should take what money they can get, but it sits poorly for me, and I wish the rest of you people would stop supporting the model. The obvious end result of this is buying every asset of a game seperately.
-----------------------------
In general I'm not in favor of microtransactions. I feel the same way the commenter feels. It's incentive for a developer/publisher to cut the game up, and try and "up-sell" you, etc. When they use their powers for good, it seems like it could be a good system. Guitar Hero, and similar games are a good use of the technology. They deliver a full game at launch, but then can deliver mini-content packs pretty much continuously. I don't feel like they'll skimp on the main game, and the content packs add appropriate new value to justify the microtransaction. This extra maps available at launch via microtransactions smacks of using their powers for evil. Maybe it's just me...
Anyway. What really struck me though, was his parting thoughts. "The obvious end result of this is buying every asset of a game seperately." This actually doesn't sound that bad. Maybe we aren't taking microtransactions far enough. I can't even begin to count the number of games throughout my lifetime that I've started, played through 5-50% of the game, and just walked away from. The mind reels... what if I only had to pay for the percentage of the game that I actually played...
Buy the first level of a game, and when it's shit, walk away. $2 later, I still have $48 in my pocket. Doom 3 for me, should have been about a $25 game. The same for half-life 2. It's not that those games weren't great, because they were. I just didn't have the attention span. Space Rangers 2 on the other hand, probably would have cost me $250, but that is another story...
Anyway, just me rambling. This system is obviously bad for developers/publishers and good for consumers, so it'll never be implimented.