What is Digg?45 Comments
- ShadowMarth, on 04/12/2009, -2/+25Honestly don't mind micropayments in online games, as long as they avoid the trap of it affecting your ability to play the game. Like in the new Battlefield Heroes game, they allow you to buy useful things like weapons with the in-game currency you get by actually playing the game, but the primary way of getting new costumes, which do not affect gameplay, is by paying real money. This does not bother me. If they allowed people to buy exclusive weapons or abilities, then we have a problem.
- ghostlywind, on 04/12/2009, -1/+20No ***** micro transactions, if i pay for the game i should get everything for it, i don't like what the gaming industry is becoming. This is why i still play ps1, ps2, and n64 games.
- birdvsworm, on 04/12/2009, -0/+17"The younger generation seem to embrace micropayments most"
I'm pretty sure the younger generation doesn't pay for the majority of the crap they buy. It only takes once for a parent's credit card info to be saved. Awesome. - inactive, on 04/12/2009, -1/+18***** micropayments.
- RetepNamenots, on 04/12/2009, -0/+11I know it makes business sense, but I personally won't be buying any games where the experience is intentionally limited without 'pay-for' upgrades. DLC content on Xbox Live is fine though, for example, because most of the time you aren't punished for not buying the extra content.
- etx313, on 04/12/2009, -0/+10Drink the Apple™ Juice...
- Ultomato, on 04/12/2009, -0/+10i have a xbox 360 and i think microsoft is already abusing it. to get the full experience for a game you have to dish out 60 for the game, 20 dollar for mappack and 40 dollars a year for xbox live.
- Llanowar, on 04/12/2009, -0/+9Micropayments my ass, I should say.
I've played tons of free games which had micro payments in it. (I never purchase anything though)
And stuff is hardly micro.
Paying 10$+ for something that often only lasts a month is *****.
And I've known people who purchase for about $100 or more per month on those micro transactions. Making it a very expensive game I would think. - 2Bnor2B, on 04/13/2009, -0/+9Be prepared for a new generation of software, where titles are purposely released as incomplete products hoping the the user would be encouraged to pay for the missing pieces.
- illtrax, on 04/12/2009, -6/+15As a 3D artist and game designer I do support the micropayment scheme. However, selling the 'free to play' idea upsets me as a gamer. Apple, I feel, got it right with iPhone's upcoming OS 3.0 release. Developers will be able to accept payments within the game on item's such as levels and new gear, but if a game is advertised as 'free', it must stay free. This way it is protects the user from fraudulent marketing by shifty game retailers. This is especially important when mobile users are paying for download bandwidth only to find that after the first level they have to lay down more cash to continue.
- billricardi, on 04/12/2009, -2/+9Japan and Korea are all over the micro payment bandwagon. And some development houses are seeing massive success. PangYa is the model of micro payment success. Sustainable business model + addictive free game with optional pay-for add ons = Big money. There are a lot of developers using this model, doing very well even in this economic climate. With luck, Hanbitsoft will do something similar with Mythos, which they got during the Hellgate: London deal.
- rebelscribe, on 04/12/2009, -1/+7The problem that I have with micropayments doesn't stem from what it is doing, but the potential for abuse. Right now, int he fairly early stages, everything is going smooth, but as soon as somebody finds out that if they hide it right they can charge you 100 bucks for a game, they're going to be all over it.
Think of it as the map pack extensions for xbox live right now. If you don't pay the dough, you're going to be stuck looking for games that don't have the new maps, and you're going to end up wasting time in search screens instead of killing bitches.
With the announcement of OnLive and all of the new "App stores" for various platforms, digital distribution is going to become a staple int he gaming world and with that comes cheaper games. With cheaper games come less money and I guarantee that nobody want's to make less money. To make up for their bottom line dropping, they're going to try and push micropurchases of weapons, maps, whatever, and I feel like, soon after that, it's going to be come mandatory.
I've always wondered why this hasn't happen sooner. With all the money Blizzard is making from WoW, it would make sense for other non-MMO games to adopt a subscription service or add in microtransactions (one like Runes of Magic).
I think what has stopped the developers from trying this out more is as simple as the American consumer. Just because it works in China and Korea, doesn't mean that it will work in America. Generally the American consumer is very techno-phobic and that holds us back from experiencing a lot of innovative things. And I'm not sure how many American's want EA Sports to have their credit card number just so they could play in an online Madden tournament.
Again, I don't have a problem with them now, because of the openness and options that are available, but I'm not really all that confident in the future.
Then again, cheaper distribution = cheaper production = more profit, so maybe they'll make more money, and I'm confident that other gamers will take a stand when the big 3 try to shovel that down our throats.
So I guess I don't really have anything to worry about lol. - Cubeforce, on 04/12/2009, -1/+6BF:Heroes utterly fails though, as costumes you buy with REAL money disappear after a month.
- 2Bnor2B, on 04/13/2009, -0/+5Micropayments will be the death of the modding community. Modders play a vital part in extending the gameplay of products. A large community of people out there donate their time to improving upon a game's design for the sheer love of the art. Micropayments will encourage developers to hold back or even actively prevent access to information since this will be viewed as a threat to their revenue source. This is a radical change from the past when products where designed to be the best that the designer could put out and modders were encouraged to keep people interested in a title until the designer released the next version.
- Akaziel, on 04/12/2009, -1/+6Hell I've seen this business model at work for years playing Kingdom Of Loathing. There is nothing in that game that you cannot get for free. However, if you donate $10, you get a special item called a "Mr. Accessory", which is a decent stat booster in and of itself, and is worth 4-5 Million in the game's currency (meat), depending on market fluctuations. It can also be traded in Mr. Store for the ever changing Item Of The Month, which is usually a very powerful item, or a familiar, or a new spell to use.
Beauty part is, if your character has earned 4-5 million meat just from playing the game, you can go to the player mall and buy a Mr. Accessory like that, and still trade it for the Item Of The Month. Or you can use earned meat to buy Items Of the Month in the mall. You really NEVER have to pay that $10 fee if you don't want to or can't afford it. It just makes collecting easier, and makes earning meat easier, plus it helps to support an amazing and ever-expanding game. I've been playing for two and a half years and the game has never stopped growing and developing new things. It's not even remotely the same game as when I began, and I love it. The dev team makes sure there is always new content to explore; the game never gets old.
Jick and Skully, creators of the game...word is they live fairly nicely off of their KoL income. They're not rich per se, but the game has expanded to the point where it's the only job they need. The optional microtransaction route works for them very well. - Llanowar, on 04/12/2009, -0/+4I really hope they do something, anything, with Mythos. It's an awesome game.
Would really be a waste to see that one go untouched. - tetraelement, on 04/12/2009, -2/+6If the headline were only true in sex.
- remccain, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3City of Heroes/Villains allows you to buy exclusive content - but it does not affect game play.
- AreTooDeTo, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3a little off topic from the story but I just got my beta key for Battlefield Heroes and it is amazing. It could use some more levels though.
- Elranzer, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3Legends of Zork basically let's you move 30 times a day for free, then charges you. It's basically unplayable unless you cough up some coin to keep playing it.
- Kanten, on 04/14/2009, -0/+3If you're going to bump the software price from $50 to $60, you had better give me the complete damn game.
- cozamonkey, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2That's already happening. Apparently RE5's multiplayer can only be accessed by buying it on xbox live.
- johnnyblazepw, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2I dont mind paying for additional content when its like GTA:IV Lost and the Damned or Burnout Paradise (bought some cars for my nephew to play with), but neither of those is required to get the full experience of the game I originally purchased.
- cigawoot, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Blizzard does something similar to this with World of Warcraft. 15 bucks pays for 1 month of service. They then have their TGC which has novelty/vanity items that do not affect gameplay but are classified as something cool and unique for your character to possess and use, such as tabards, small vanity pets, mounts, etc. Ultimately the collection of these items costs RL money, however the possession of these items will not affect your character's combat statistics or give you an advantage over other players. Blizzard learned that vanity items can make alot of money without disrupting gameplay for those who choose not to collect those items. If games you pay for adapt this micro-payment system at least they should follow this scheme and be vanity-only and not affect gameplay for other players.
- kinseyincanada, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2@etx313 you do realize hes disagreeing with Apples DLC service.
- ShadowMarth, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2Meh, kinda. They do have the ability to buy a modifier for XP, such that for a week or so you could get 150% XP. It wouldn't be a problem, if the grind wasn't so bad. Main reason I'm not terribly interested in it anymore. In the beta, like the stat-building stuff, but to get all the ability points to toy around with would take so damned much time I'm not at all interested, when I could just go play a better game. Also worried that the leveling is that steep because they want people to buy the upgrades...
- ShadowMarth, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2So did I, but seriously, it was cool for a bit, but it's a seriously dumbed-down shooter. Just makes me want to play TF2.
- Elranzer, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Dugg for KoL. Legends of Zork just doesn't compare (other than the pretty artwork),
- iticu, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2If pricing is your thing, I definately prefer Guild Wars.
- cigawoot, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2I said similar not identical. The change in speed is by different tiers of riding skill, which cost gold. You cannot use the TGC to get 300 riding (which allows 280% speed epic flying mounts). If you already purchased the skill thats where the advantage is. Also when you unlock a spectral tiger you still have to pay gold to actually purchase the mount outright.
Yes I do play wow. - inactive, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Like the new MMORPG Runes of Magic; free to play, but with item shop that you pay money for.
Better than $15 a month for WoW. - joshuaer, on 04/12/2009, -1/+3Blizzard uses the you pay for every thing method the idea of micro payments is that I can play for free but if i want something else i have to pay for it. selling a game then changing some one to play the game every month is much different.
maybe wow has changed in the last couple of months but when i played it the small vanity pets, tabards cost WoW gold which you have to earn not pay money for! buying gold and selling gold is or at least was against the TOS also Mounts effect the game since they have different speeds.
Do you play wow? - lejake, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2I'll be curious to see how MLB Dugout Heroes performs, which is a microtransaction-based baseball game targeted to the U.S. audience. It has real MLB teams and players and the gameplay is actually quite solid. It's still in its beta stage but should be "live" in a month or so.
I 'm interested to see how enticing they make it for me to actually pay money. - Akaziel, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Nice try, but no. There is no corporate thing for KoL anyway. I just really love the game, and their business model applies here. Most people have never heard of the game, so I felt the need to explain the details.
- mikemehak, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2this is like the digg bar.
Only retards think it's a good idea
go ahead, bury me for insulting everything you love! - 2Bnor2B, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2I prefer EVE's model.
> You buy the game once. (its really cheap, the box set is about $35 which includes 60day game play)
> With your monthly payments you get all future updates for free. (they have one about every 6 months)
> In-game money can actually be used to purchase game time. (current price about 300mil isk for 30day pass)
> Everything in the game is brought with in-game money. No unique items for RL money.
{I am not starting a WOW vs EVE debate here. Just making an observation of pricing structure.) - joshuaer, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Well it was a great article but they left out Travian which is one of the biggest play for free micro payment game around.
- Warcrack, on 04/12/2009, -1/+2What's with all the huge comments?
- gazboo, on 04/12/2009, -5/+6I was really hoping this article had something to do with penis size.
- inactive, on 04/12/2009, -1/+2Or you can use WPE :)
- bluesatin, on 04/12/2009, -1/+1Correct me if I'm wrong but all the buyable 'weapons' are unlockable by levelling your character up.
What the payment essentially does it level your character up quicker so you have access to these weapons, it'd be like if you could pay Valve to do all your TF2 achievements to get the new weapons. - 96EK4, on 04/12/2009, -2/+2<Citation Needed>
- Rhydeble, on 04/12/2009, -2/+2Enjoy your corporately sponsored digg comments.
- JunkYardPuppy, on 04/12/2009, -2/+1Make it free to play, and offer microtransactions for the people that are willing to pay for some extra content. Of course, this extra content must not limit gameplay for non-payers or make it too unbalanced.
Microtransactions are the way to go and companies should realize this. That's why I bought a PS3 to play online and only use my 360 for single player mode. That way I can play a game for free after I have bought it, and if there is DLC then I have the choice/money to buy it. - soloman747, on 04/12/2009, -4/+1You win the "longest comment on a digg submission" award.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is