This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How do you gamers feel about micro-transactions in gaming?

#21GeistPosted 1/23/2013 7:32:21 AM
Wow, seems I'm so far the only one that likes them. Personally I don't mind at all paying a 1$ or 2$ for a little extra fun. It's cheap enough so why not I say.
---
Currently playing: Mass Effect 3
#22SheepinatorPosted 1/23/2013 7:34:02 AM
Geist posted...
Wow, seems I'm so far the only one that likes them. Personally I don't mind at all paying a 1$ or 2$ for a little extra fun. It's cheap enough so why not I say.

It's because as I said earlier in the thread, the poll was deliberately biased to skew the results the way TC wanted. The wording of the "yes" options is deliberately misleading and antagonistic to discourage people from choosing it.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#23Banana_ManaPosted 1/23/2013 7:35:44 AM
memphis12 posted...
I've got money, but it's the principle. I'm paying 50 for a game, I want everything included in that 50.



This makes no sense.

You pay 50 and get everything included in the 50 package.
You then choose whether or not you want extras.

You don't pay 50 then watch in disbelief as the game self-deletes levels as you play.

You get what you paid for, which if you were a sensible consumer you would have researched.

Anyway... I get your point, and do agree with you... Your logical inaccuracy annoyed me though.
---
2013 is here. New Year's resolution = play more, eat more, drink more, achieve less.
#24Perfect LightPosted 1/23/2013 7:49:15 AM
I am completely indifferent about them. I'll still buy a game with them, but I'll never use them.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIbu3wJDmVQ - New gaming series
My podcast: hulkshare.com/inferiorminds
#25gambit444Posted 1/23/2013 7:53:57 AM
i voted "dislike but will buy game & not use microtransactions" but i do think if a game is free then it's OK to support it by buying something from the microtransaction
---
Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy.
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
#26DarthSchubertPosted 1/23/2013 8:01:47 AM
There isn't anything wrong with the idea, but the cost/value proposition is awful. I pay $60 for a game, and you want me to spend $2.50 for an extra .02% content? That's just stupid.

And since I
A) Don't like being nickel-and-dimed,
B) know that the developer spent incrementally less time working on the core product since they were building micro trans crap, and
C) Just don't trust those developers as much

I am ultimately a little less like to buy the game. A game like DS3 where I'm already borderline... this sort of news pushes me into not buying it.
---
"Life is like a box of chocolates. Diabetics can't enjoy either."
#27SheepinatorPosted 1/23/2013 8:07:18 AM
DarthSchubert posted...
There isn't anything wrong with the idea, but the cost/value proposition is awful. I pay $60 for a game, and you want me to spend $2.50 for an extra .02% content? That's just stupid.

And since I
A) Don't like being nickel-and-dimed,
B) know that the developer spent incrementally less time working on the core product since they were building micro trans crap, and
C) Just don't trust those developers as much

I am ultimately a little less like to buy the game. A game like DS3 where I'm already borderline... this sort of news pushes me into not buying it.

The devs have said the game is twice as long as DS1 and DS2. So I'm not sure how points A, B or C apply here. It therefore seems silly to bias against something because you choose to ignore the value in the base package and just focus on what you aren't getting, i.e. a free option to upgrade your weapons earlier in an SP/coop game. Who cares how or when someone else upgrades their stuff in their own campaign?
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#28secondhand1Posted 1/23/2013 8:34:41 AM
DarthSchubert posted...
There isn't anything wrong with the idea, but the cost/value proposition is awful. I pay $60 for a game, and you want me to spend $2.50 for an extra .02% content? That's just stupid.

And since I
A) Don't like being nickel-and-dimed,
B) know that the developer spent incrementally less time working on the core product since they were building micro trans crap, and
C) Just don't trust those developers as much

I am ultimately a little less like to buy the game. A game like DS3 where I'm already borderline... this sort of news pushes me into not buying it.


Except you don't know that. Not even a little bit.
---
The inherent idiocy of youth often outweighs its many advantages.
#29memphis12Posted 1/23/2013 8:53:49 AM
Banana_Mana posted...
memphis12 posted...
I've got money, but it's the principle. I'm paying 50 for a game, I want everything included in that 50.



This makes no sense.

You pay 50 and get everything included in the 50 package.
You then choose whether or not you want extras.

You don't pay 50 then watch in disbelief as the game self-deletes levels as you play.

You get what you paid for, which if you were a sensible consumer you would have researched.

Anyway... I get your point, and do agree with you... Your logical inaccuracy annoyed me though.


It might be me, I'm beyond tired. I'm trying to complete KOA & all achievs. The game is sooo long though!

Anyway, I guess I'm old school. I pay for something, I get the game. I know back in the day we had expansions, but they were exactly that, expansions.
I feel EA give us something already made for the game to purchase, usually something really good as well.
Example Dark Souls. Say the Drake Sword was there when they designed the game, but they took it out, or when you got the final hit on the dragons tail it said "you can now purchase Drake Sword for X amount"

To me, they arent giving us the "full game" more 90% then charging us more for the rest.

I feel my point has been lost somewhere in my babble. (I'm at work)

I don't mind as long as I don't "need" the extra content really.
---
'I wrestled with an alligator,I tussled with a whale,only last week I murdered a rock, injured a stone, hospitalized a brick. I'm so mean I make medicine sick.'
#30SheepinatorPosted 1/23/2013 8:59:31 AM
memphis12 posted...
It might be me, I'm beyond tired. I'm trying to complete KOA & all achievs. The game is sooo long though!

Anyway, I guess I'm old school. I pay for something, I get the game. I know back in the day we had expansions, but they were exactly that, expansions.
I feel EA give us something already made for the game to purchase, usually something really good as well.
Example Dark Souls. Say the Drake Sword was there when they designed the game, but they took it out, or when you got the final hit on the dragons tail it said "you can now purchase Drake Sword for X amount"

To me, they arent giving us the "full game" more 90% then charging us more for the rest.

I feel my point has been lost somewhere in my babble. (I'm at work)

I don't mind as long as I don't "need" the extra content really.

By KOA I presume you mean Kingdoms of Amalur? That EA published game which included an online pass to unlock additional quests and items, and the game which you yourself just described as "sooo long".

I haven't played Dark Souls but I know people have put in a lot of time into it, often 80+ hours. Would one less sword make the game suddenly poor value? And that's assuming it's as you claim, rather than that the sword was always planned to be DLC and was budgeted accordingly with additional resources.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.