digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Can Microtransactions Ruin Console Gaming?

gamersreports.com — Online gaming can potentially be heading in a bad direction.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • SqueakyWheel, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6Capitalism ruins everything apparently!
    • PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13In a free market economy, capitalism also has the potential to fix everything, too. Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of utopia and there will always be some aspects of capitalism that "just plain suck."
    • DRTED, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4They will soon incorporate a credit card swipe on the wiimote, so you can purchase different colored outfits for Mario
    • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1...well it does.
    • akira117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not really capitalism if only the game developer can sell stuff for their game.
      That is not capitalism that is a closed economy. (thats way we have rules against monopolies)
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7What's ruining the gaming industry is that gamers stubbornly have it stuck in their heads that console games should cost $50-60 until the end of time. The development and marketing costs have skyrocketed for A-list video games, and yet the developers can't charge any more -- in UNADJUSTED dollars -- than they were charging twenty years ago for comparatively primitive fare like Super Mario Bros. and Tetris.

      That's the problem. Those NES games you bought for $50 back in the 80's would cost $80 in 2007 dollars. The industry is in serious trouble because games have gotten too cheap, while gamers (and, more importantly, gamers' parents) think they've gotten too expensive. The developers need to make a profit on these things somehow, so they've hit upon the concept of microtransactions.

      You don't like the concept? Neither do I. The alternative is $80 console games. Those wouldn't sell if they hit the market, and so here we are.
    • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Here is why you have nothing to worry about: While adults have been making up more and more of the game market, video gaming (especially FPS) is primarly done by kids. Kids don't have credit cards to buy this stuff, and parents who have to pay the bills aren't likely to give them one. There may be a few games that will do this, but the market will never be dominated by them.

      There are already mmorpg games out there that do this, actually. And no one really plays them.

      @gerz: your actually arguing that games should cost more? Are you aware of the markup on video games?
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Markup? There was an article on here a while back that broke down the costs associated with a title. Development and marketing costs make up something like 60% of the game's retail price. Then they have to pay out royalty fees to the console manufacturer, the distributor gets another chunk, Gamestop has their markup, and so on. The developer doesn't start making a profit until the game sells over a million copies, which obviously most games never do. The state of the industry right now is that a few blockbuster titles cover the massive losses incurred by the vast majority of games released -- it's quite similar to the current state of the film and music industries.

      Don't kid yourself into thinking that because it costs $0.05 to press a DVD and package it, that game developers are somehow making a $59.95 profit on all of these games. In most cases, they're taking a loss. So yes, games have gotten too cheap. This microtransaction scam is a clever way to make the consumer pay more -- which they should be doing -- while appearing to charge the same base price for the game. It's only "greedy" if you define "greed" as the desire to stay in business. Again, I don't like the practice, because I don't like hidden costs. If it's a choice between the two, I'd rather have $80 games and no microtransactions. Most parents handing out the allowance money would disagree, so I get voted down.

      Now I really don't see how anyone could argue that games aren't too cheap. Load up Super Mario Bros. What are there, like 10 different character sprites and a dozen texture blocks? Now load up Gears of War. Think about how much time and money went into creating all those detailed character models, capturing the animations, designing and rendering those maps. It's mind-boggling. And yet, in real dollars, the developers of Gears of War are forced to charge $20 LESS a copy than the guys who slapped together Super Mario Bros.
    • BuddyDoQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8When I see a game for $60 on the shelf; it better be the greatest game in the whole world. After all, just down the isle is another game just as pretty that only cost $30, even if it ain't exactly new. You might as well forget selling MT to me, just like those service packs from best buy, I won't even blink at you.

      It's very hard to shake the "scam" feeling MT gives. IMHO it lowers the standard of you as a publisher. I mean, if you're game was so great, it'd already have all that extra stuff in it. Right? Right?
    • tralalaa, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@gerz

      "This microtransaction scam is a clever way to make the consumer pay more -- which they should be doing..."

      You're a ***** idiot. Plain and simple. Once you said that line, you lost all credibility.

      Consumers should pay more? ***** you.
    • grgt1994, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@gerz1219: You have GOT to be kidding. Your economic analogy forgets contemporary reality. The mid to late 80's video game was sold in a market so small that barely any company (spare a few quirky companies like Atari and Commodore) could even care about. Today the game industry rivals the FREEKING movie industry. So per unit sales are completely meaningless. Total revenue is now obnoxious.

      The cure for the game industry is not higher but LOWER game prices. Once games cost $5 a pop, then we will have a mature industry with rock star game developers slurping down Crystal on a nightly basis.
    • frozen1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@gerz1219

      The game industry did it to THEMSELVES, the release hardware, THEY release the games... the consumers don't choose when Nintendo, sony, et, al release new hardware.

      Game devleopers, being the pussy whooped bunch they are let the hardware make their development costs skyrocket, NOT the consumer, I'm not going to cry a river over the industries stupidity, consumers have NO control over the industry, what it believes, and what decisions it makes. $60 IS too expensive for a game when the quality of most games is utter CRAP. The whole business model for the game industry USED to work because graphics (the most expensive part of the game) were much cheaper.

      Gamers did not force the advent of 3D from 2D, higher horsepower, etc, etc. Game companies did that. If game companies would just focus on their core: Gameplay, the would not have gotten themselves into this mess. But no... they THOUGHT they had to have "super graphics" with no gameplay what-so-ever, I hope the game industry tanks, serves the ***** right for going after joe consumer and his reflex retarded children.
  • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17As long as EA (And similar companies) is either banned from using them or someone gives them a clue we'll be fine.
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Digg parent up, he speaks the truth.

      Every single publisher except for EA has been using microtransactions extremely well. Even the horse armor skirmish was more of a test- Bethesda has been using MTs well otherwise.

      But, then you get EA and their ***** "pay for stuff you can unlock!!!" attitude. We wouldn't be having this problem if it wasn't for EA.
    • john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're forgetting about the whole Lumines XBLA scandal. I'm not defending EA by any means, but they're far from the only guilty party here.
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lumines isn't necessarily a scandal. The thing's overblown. I personally have & love LIVE!, and have not purchased the advance pack. $15 is not a bad price for just the main mode of the game. Not a great price by any means, but not bad.
    • john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's no need to defend it, it's a prime example of microtransaction rape.. Even if it didn't personally bother you that much, surely you remember the uproar and all the general anti-microtransaction sentiment it generated.
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How long before game developers *cough*EA*cough* start making games impossibly difficult at the outset for even the most experienced and skilled gamers, making the micro-transaction "downloads" (most are just unlocks for things already on the game disc) basically a necessity?

      Add to that next-gen HD content - How long before your blu-ray or HD-DVD player requires an extra payment for some content that would've normally come for free on the disc? We could see movie prices for discs stay relatively level, around $25-$30, but these unlocks for extra features could pile on top of that. Don't think that either side hasn't already thought of this.
  • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Just wait for it. I guarantee you a time will come when you get to the end of the level and up pops "Please Insert Visa Card To Progress To The Next Level"

    Laugh if you want, but just remember that I said this. In ten years when 'the beauty of a natural free market' has had its say you'll be laughing out the other side of your face on your sock on the other foot.
    • RichPowers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Don't forget the in-game ads. Publishers are trying to increase their profit margins as games become more expensive to produce and market. They'll keep up with ads and microtransactions until we stop buying their products. But these might become such an accepted practice that people just take it and stop fighting.

      I'm not against microtransactions (or episodic content) IN THEORY; I'm against games being designed to short-change us. As in developers will intentionally cut up their storyline or leave out horse armor (or whatever) just so they can resell it to us later. Or the publisher will say, "I really like these tanks you included in your game, but you need to take them out so we can offer them on Xbox Marketplace next month."

      Also keep in mind that within 10 years, most games will probably be digitally distributed (read: no shipping and packaging overhead), yet they'll still give us in-game ads and microtransactions, thereby increasing their margins even more...
    • jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3i don't mind in game adds ass long as it dosent effect games plus it would be awsome to see 'this load brought to you by Coke"
    • john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"plus it would be awsome to see 'this load brought to you by Coke"

      Awesome? You seem to be very easy to please.... either that or your standards are a bit low..

      In any case, no one is forcing us to buy games loaded with microtransactions.. If publishers want their games to actually sell, they'll probably hold back on the extreme microtransaction nightmare scenario.
    • banz23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0That would essentially be episodic gaming, which valve and other companies are already doing. Without MT the game publishers have no financial incentive to develop new levels or maps after a game is out of the door. MT if used correctly can get us more good content for the games that we play.
  • lonewolf707, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21EA ruin gaming
    • YoungDeezy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Uh huh
    • apothekari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree and I must say that I play games to escape the fact that I'm poor and probably will never get to fly a plane or drive a ferrari or own a castle in real life!
      You elitist assholes who say "nobody's forcing you" usually have the extra coin to spare!
      I do not wish to buy a game get it home go online and because some spoiled 10 year old has a visa card he can buy enough upgrades to slay my ass without even trying!
      I have been a gamer since I was a little kid in the 70's playing asteroids in the arcade, and I have had every system from Ralph Baer's Odyssey to the newest consoles out now.
      I have always managed to squirrel enough pay away to get what I want,But so help me god If the industry travels too far down this "Man on the hill in real life= Man on the hill in fantasy" ***** I WILL find a NEW hobby.
      And trust me I WON"T be alone.
      I remember 1982 well and if game manufacturers insist on this course they will find themselves in the Nevada desert in E.T.'s unmarked grave.
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Console gamers are idiots for paying for maps, single player gear that does nothing and the glorified MSN gaming zone.
    • harbl, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Seconded. I'll stick with my more powerful and versatile PC, thank you very much.
    • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Hey, dont put the blame soley on console gamers, PC gamers are just as idiotic, they pay for WoW gold.
    • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5buying gold in WoW is atleast a time saver in a game known for being a time sink.Compared to buying a helmet that does nothing and that nobody can see, buying WoW gold makes sense.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6WoW sickens me. Those kids let it consume their lives, then lie about it and try to convince people that playing casually 10 hours a day hasn't ruined their social lives.
    • CyberGhost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Right but it's happening for PC too, in game ads in BF, also in BF2, to get that awesome sniper rifle you have to buy the expansion.

      I HATE EA, their greed matches that of the music/movie industry, I hope they all burn.(I don't mean artists and talanted people, I mean those fat assed, do nothing, greedy publishing assholes)
    • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1how can anybody digg me down?People dont even buy gold from the game dev(which this topic is about).
    • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey now, not all WoW players buy in-game gold with real money. Then again, I just quit WoW after three months, so I guess I don't qualify.
  • gharding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It depends on what you have to buy. It'd be nice if companies threw out free downloads, as well. I don't see it as a bad thing, overall. I mean, think about the games you're playing. The original Doom cost about the same as Doom 3. And I'm pretty sure more man-hours were put into the latter.
  • ErinIsADrunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11not to be a jackass but people need to stop saying "microtranscations are going to ruin the industry", there is a really easy solution to the problem STOP paying for them. The minute companies start seeing that the microtransaction business model is not profitable they will stop doing it.
    • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The problem is there is enough idiots paying for this *****.Not much people who arent dumb enough to pay to do about it.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6A guy further down the thread suggested that he would rather pay for the cheats in a game rather than spend the monumental energies required to use Google and then press a button combination. That does not bode well.
  • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I want to digg this article because I totally agree with the general idea.. but the article itself is very poorly written, IMO.
  • doskir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6about 2 years ago there was a pretty good article about the microtransaction game it was like this: pay full retail price for the game, pay 10cents for each bullet, pay 10cents for each enemy kill or skip directly to the ending for 100$
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Reasons why it's worth to be a PC Gamer:
    http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24525221

    There we go, problem solved :)
  • jake8689, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it won't take off if we don't buy it so i say we use the digg effect to stop before it gets any further
  • killdashnine, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Cheats have always available for games ... console or otherwise. Paying for them only makes it so people don't have to scour the Internet for hacks and hit an ungodly series of buttons for half an hour to get a power up or gobs of cash without effort.



    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I hope I'm misunderstanding you.. Are you really suggesting that it's better and easier to pay for cheats than it is to spend five minutes on a search engine?
    • killdashnine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely not! I imagine I got dugg down for misrepresentation.

      I'm implying that there are a number of people out there who'd pay to be completely lazy. I agree with the spirit of the article in that this aspect of micropayments can't be good.
  • rledwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some market place upgrades are actually unlockable features in the game. Notably, you could purchase the Dodge Viper, but you could also earn it just as easily by going through career mode. I think this is a great way to nickel and dime stupid people to death. I only wish I could get a piece of the action.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"The arcade experience in your living room" PLEASE INSERT COIN

    It sucks, but it's not quite as bad as MEGATRANSACTIONS like upgrading that copy of Vista Home Basic
  • kanundrum, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I think how Bungie implemented micro transactions in Halo 2 was pretty decent. You could buy the expansion if you wanted or wait a couple months to download the extra maps. It was a good balance between adding extra functionality and making it good for them. I loved the idea that stuff was being added and it extended the replay value of Halo 2 for me (I played it an entire year without touching another game). While EA is abusing what could be a good thing, let's not forget that there is some good in micro transactions
  • MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Microtransactions wouldn't be half bad if it wasn't for the fact that the data is already on the disc. Which goes to show that the purpose of the microtransaction wasn't to keep people intrested in the game like what Microsoft touted. It was so publishers could carve a little bit off the finished product to sell to you at a later date.

    @Orientis you do have to pay to go to the next level it's called episodic content ala Half Life 2

    @Skweeky Wheel yes capitalism does ruin everything when it is not in a free market environment.
    • MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh yeah....and micro transactions on consoles basicly make you pay for what the mod community does for free on PCs.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The free-market can ruin things just fine by itself - it hardly even needs the input of humans.

      Half Life 2 Ep 1 was a good four hours of gameplay, for what, $30 ? It was basically half a game for a third of the price. Episodic content is NOT microtransactions. There are similarities, in that they are both transactions, but episodic != micro.
    • MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what? 4 hours of play for $30?! And you think that's good? 8 hours for $60?! Your okay with that rip off? Games used to give you 50 hours of play for $40 dollars!! ***** games used to give you 25 hours of game play for $50.
  • StephanCom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Hmm. If you pirate music, musicians won't make money, so there won't be as much good new music (so they say).
    If video game developers make a lot more money, like through microtransactions, then maybe there will be a lot more good video games?

    I used to want to be in the video game business, but a lot of the art has been sacrificed to reach the lowest common denominator. What with the prices at a near-constant across the board per platform, typically dropping rapidly after release in dutch auction style, there's very little impetus to create a game that does more than review well and have a cool cover and, most importantly, a cool license. Nowhere is this more evident than in mobile phone games, which are by and large shovelware, just leveraging a brand with the least possible engaging game play.

    This is why I don't really want to contribute in that world - the cost pressure and focus on simply fulfilling a license for maximum initial sales means that game programmers are largely underpaid and overworked. I was offered a programming position at one prominent company for roughly the same hourly wage that a manager at Trader Joe's makes.

    Perhaps with microtransactions, better programmers and designers might be drawn to the industry, and there will be a focus on compelling game play that lasts... or at least lasts as long as you keep feeding in quarters :)

    The video game industry started with microtransactions - 3 pac-men for a quarter - and it makes sense to me to get back to that.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"If you pirate music, musicians won't make money, so there won't be as much good new music (so they say)."

      They lie. I'd go so far as to suggest that if the music industry was based purely on talent rather than profits we'd see a hell of a lot more good music coming out.

      Your other points are ludicrous. You think you can make a realistic comparison between arcade pac-man and, say, Oblivion on the PC? Even if you could, that doesn't justify your argument. In fact your entire comment is so blatantly false and hopefully optimistic that I think you work for EA.
    • StephanCom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1EA is the one that wanted to pay $12/hour.

      I was being a little sarcastic with the music comment... but programmers, I think, tend to be a teensy bit more machiavellian than musicians.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Perhaps you'd like to explain the tactics that video game programmers have taken from Machiavelli and made their own?
  • guerrilla_suit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Microtransactions could be used to extend the life of a game in a positive way. Racing games could continue adding cars and tracks, fighting games could keep adding fighters and fighting locations, weapons. I would love to see some of my favorite games continue with added content. PGR3 hasn't done too badly with the added content, and now that game is sold much cheaper than $60.

    I would love to see added missions or content for Grand Theft Auto, FORZA, or even Guuitar Hero. Charging a small fee wouldn't destroy the experience.

    Although, what would be wrong with adding content, and adding in game advertisements with it? Adding or changing billboards, or blimps, signs, product placement objects could pay for those content upgrades.

    I trust that most companies will kill the golden goose with this I'm sure...

    • StephanCom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I would _so_ pay a couple of bucks for a new Guitar Hero song...

      Especially if that meant I could pick the tunes I want, I'm not especially into much of the hard rock, maybe half the main songs are things I'd never heard before and could do without. (though, oddly, since Guitar Hero II, I don't think Matthew Sweet is so much of a pussy..)
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Rock that isn't hard isn't worthy to be called rock.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If it's not hard it's not rock.
  • akira117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Another reason PC gaming will never die.....
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's right, I could write a game right now on my PC, and even sell it, but that could never happen with proprietary consoles. I once looked into writing for game consoles and it ain't free.
  • hambro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sneaky journalist explains own calamity via fictional girlfriend.
  • jdaniel284, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Here is why I do not like the idea of Micro-transactions.

    Gaming is an fantastic art. And it is escapism. I want to pay the upfront costs and forget about the real world, my problems, my finances. I do not want to be tethered to the real world. I do not want to have to think what is on the game disc and what is unlockable. I want to forget that there *is* a gamedisc! I certainly don't want to think about having to work real-life hours at a job in order to continue the fantasy.

    What if movies tried this same approach. You paid for your ticket, and every now and then some little guy came and shook you on the shoulder while the movie was paused. "Want to see that jiffy new special effect or do you want to skip it? 10 cents to see it? Enjoying the movie? Want to see the nude scene? 25 cents, please."

    It just constantly pulls you out of the fantasy. If these companies have to charge $100 for the game upfront to be profittable, then fine. I'm wealthy and don't give a damn. But after I pay then LMTFA.
  • Spamcan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't mind forking over cash for the occasional map pack but some of the stuff they're charging for is absolutely crazy. How can they justify charging $5 for a few items of virtual clothing when complete XBLA games are $5 to $15? I'm sorry, my pinatas don't need a new hat that badly.
  • MrDaniil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't know what all of you are complaining about. Will this make money for the companies? Yes. Would people pay for something like that? Oh yes:

    1) I suck at this game. Its too complex. Earning credits (or whathaveyou) is way to complicated. Let me spend some real money to be good. Hows this different from paying more for a better hotel service?

    2) I gotta purchase this kick ass new game! But - there's a choice. Purchase Regular Edition which comes with 10 levels or purchase Ultra Edition which a bit more expensive but comes with 20 levels plus 5 extra ones not found anywhere else!!! I don't know, do they already have those yet?

    Its simple - you have money, you can buy. How is gaming any different? Its just an industry.
  • shutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Microtransactions don't ruin gaming, stupid and greedy game publishers ruin gaming.

    Microtransactions by themselves are neither a good thing nor a bad thing. As they say, it's all about how you use it.

    EA doesn't seem to understand what microtransactions mean. Instead of selling a full game, then selling extra content through microtransactions (which is how the system should be used) they build the full game, then remove half the content and features and sell those through microtransactions.

    If good games start to ask you to pay to proceed through the normal game, let me tell you, those games won't be considered good anymore. It won't be the end of good games, just the end of stupid publishers.
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"EA doesn't seem to understand what microtransactions mean. Instead of selling a full game, then selling extra content through microtransactions (which is how the system should be used) they build the full game, then remove half the content and features and sell those through microtransactions."

      Here's a clue: you don't know what microtransactions mean. They mean more profits for game publishers. It's all well and good to say that MTs SHOULD be used in a certain way - but that has almost nothing to do with how they will be used. Unless you're hoping that corporate tactics are just going to change over night. The shareholders are the bottom line - that is it. Full stop.

      "If good games start to ask you to pay to proceed through the normal game, let me tell you, those games won't be considered good anymore. It won't be the end of good games, just the end of stupid publishers."

      It's the frog in water syndrome - you don't notice the boiling until it's too late. MTs will increase until a new generation is born that couldn't conceive of buying a full game in a package. Slow creep - that's how any thing that would seem odious to a 'reasonable' person is achieved. Just look at the US government.
  • Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just what we need: The gaming world to be just like the real world - all the spoiled rich kids get all the cool stuff. Imagine being in a game like Warcraft and getting owned by some noob who bought all the best stuff. Not cool.
  • Zenquen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I remember when microtransactions were called "gameshark"
  • PureHeretic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Eh, why even care? PC FTW!!!
    • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2really, oblivion is proof of this. user made mods ftw. in any case, i am against mt's simply because it means those with more money have an advantage. that negates the idea of equality in video games. noone should have a different competetive ability based on anything other than skill. a rich person should not own face in CS simply because they are rich, a poor person should be on an equal playing field.
  • grumbel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Microtransactions can of course ruin the gaming world when done wrong, when implemented right on the other side they provide a huge chance for independent developers to make some money with their own creations, which especially in this day and age where almost every game is a sequel is needed.

    I don't know how microtransaction will turn out in the end, but the potential benefit it well worth the risk of a few useless horse-armor add-ons.
  • makerm2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can promise that eventually there will be a good free/opensource game that will be able to compete with commercial games.
  • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Once again, the corporatists are trying to jew us out of our money.
  • erwanl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's funny, it looks like Magic the Gathering, or any other collectible card games. It's fun at the beginning when you get strong cards, but when you realize that the guy who is willing to throw the more money in the game wins, it's no longer so fun. I stopped Magic because of that (it's a scam) and now I'll stay away for games proposing that kind of micropayment.
    • revisrev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Play draft or sealed deck tournaments. Evens the playing field considerably. It's the only true skill way to play the game. Yea, there's a certain amount of luck, but you're going to have that in a card game anyway.
  • lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1PC ftw. i dont think any pc developer has even dared try this on the pc platform. LIVE anywheree would fail miserably if it required payments on the pc for the same reason. PC gamers have gotten along without it for years now, and they do not take kindly to such things.
  • darthmiho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Look this is my issue with micro-transactions, it's one thing if the content we're paying for is something noteworthy like a new set of maps for Gears of War. But even beyond the economic ramifications of microtransactions, they easily in many cases have the potential to break a game in terms of good game design. Like how the game was suddenly easier than it really should be with the purchase of a car that the player shouldn't have the ability to get till much later in the game.

    If they're going to put things that normally aren't available in the game available solely though this system, they really need to take game design into account. Also in terms of the example itself, it's freaking EA! They're known as the most evil company in gaming! I felt dirty when I enjoyed Battlefield 2142, because I knew my money was going to EA.
  • tralalaa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yep, and if the game industry heads in a ***** direction, we'll just download the games instead of paying for them like we always have.
  • jeffbarnett513, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Adam Smith would find it comical that anyone claims that something can be ruined because someone decides to purchase an optional accessory for it. Don't like the effects? Don't purchase the accessory. The free market is free, you know. You have a choice.
  • ontain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ahh paying money for what was once gotten through cheat codes. :P
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.