Gearbox - Please avoid the temptation of micro-transactions

Gearbox, please avoid the temptation of introducing micro-transactions. So many games are polluting their space with pay to play enhancers. If you are adding content to this game post launch then a “Good” value season pass is still a better option over pay to play :smile:

10 Likes

Depends. I don’t mind low-price cosmetic content for example. No advantage, just an option for the player to show his love for the game.

4 Likes

A full price game should be expected to have none.
Skins are different though.

5 Likes

Borderlands provides skins for free, nice to keep it that way. If you want a chunk more of the game then a well structured season pass can provide that already. I like to think that there is a reasonable limit to purchasing a game and with micro-transations that can be hard to define.

1 Like

I think GBX did well with Borderlands 2 by adding Big, medium and small content that didn’t felt you were being ripped off (ok the slaughter dome was a bit meh…).

Yes there are a lot of possibilities for microtransactions. I already asked Randy about this being implemented with the Gear system. They have talked about it, but there are no consumables/burn-cards/one time use loot at launch. GBX isn’t talking a lot about DLC, i got the feeling they are still waiting how the main audience is responding to the game.

1 Like

Wise move. This seems to be the same approach they used for Borderlands and for the most part that worked well.

1 Like

Yet people will whine about it.

This is the internet. Crybabies will always exist.
Tell them to get a job, if they want to look nice. It’s not like it will give anyone an advantage

Skins arnt good microtransactions, just the bare minimum that isn’t blatantly unacceptable.

It’s still content being sold that really feels like it should be free (or included with something large).

Seeing cool customisation options in a menu with a “$1.99” next to them is super depressing, and partially takes away from any immersion a game has.

I think what needs to happen is games need to go up in price, and microtransactions should disappear.

Game development is f*cking expensive, and it’s growing all the time, but the retail price of a game hasn’t changed in forever (in America at least).

The amount of people who actually playthrough the games they buy is staggeringly low (it’s very rare to get over 50% of players beating a game, 100%ing it is always below 5% of players), so I imagine DLC sales and microtransactions are fairly low as well.

If everyone who bought a game paid $10 more on launch, and sales stayed the same, and microtransactions and other “sketchy” or exploitative DLC was removed, I’d think that profits would be around the same.

That’s a different matter, although i agree.
I’d gladly pay 10-15€ more, if i don’t already see at least 10 aspects that could’ve been done better upon finishing the main game. Especially in those games that advertise replayability. (Looking at you, “The Crew”)

1 Like

If you don’t announce DLC people think you won’t support your game.
And if you announce it to early people start crying why that content isn’t in the game at launch.
But if you have 1000 dollar worth of cosmetic content on day one people go like WTF!!! (Looking at you Evolve)

Some people hate microtransactions and will never get them. But there is also a group of players that will buy those on F2P games so they feel like they paid for the game.

It’s a strange world. So let’s put our differences aside and destroy the varellsi…ow wait that’s a different story

2 Likes

The extremely vocal people on the internet complaining about DLC and microstransactions are actually just a small part of the player base. Companies keep adding microtransactions, paid skins, etc. because people are paying for them. Most people buy games and play them without ever going on the internet to talk about the game or participate in the communities. Look at Destiny. The game has sold over 20 million copies, yet they have only 940K followers on Twitter and 2.6 mil followers on Facebook.

1 Like

How is something like skins, added after launch exploitative?
If the skins in Battleborn are just pallete swaps (and charge money), then that is just ■■■■■.

[quote=“Mr_Sandman, post:9, topic:697849”]
I think what needs to happen is games need to go up in price, and microtransactions should disappear.
[/quote]You know that games would just go up and price and micro-transaction nonsense will still be there right?

I’m pretty sure it’s something you should plea to 2K, not Gearbox.

An i also don’t mind paid Skins (As long as it’s reasonable and worth it) It’s much better than paid characters, or PvP maps.

6 Likes

Woah woah, slow down, take a step back. Microtransactions are not inherently bad. How does a developer make money? The obvious answer is game sales, but that revenue stream sees a big surge at launch and then trickles down to $0 fast. The devs only make money off of every new copy sold; they make absolutely nothing off of used copies. So how is a game developer supposed to make money to continue to develop games?

Microtransactions provide an addition revenue stream that is optional for the consumer. Skins, taunts, and other cosmetic additions are fun to look at without creating a “pay to win” environment by offering unfair advantages to those who choose to pay for such things. Just like with anything, there is a right way and a wrong way to implement microtransactions. Cutting playable content from the game and offering it back at $5 a piece is the wrong way. Offering “just for fun” cosmetic items, or even something like an XP boost, is a step in the right direction. Devs gotta eat too.

It’s easy to make blanket statements like “all microtransactions are bad,” but being a responsible consumer…that takes discipline.

3 Likes

I strongly disagree. People who buy the game at launch are the core market as they have spent their hard earned dollars for a full price game. To keep gouging this core market in order to hope to obtain a few bucks from others who get the game for cheap rubs against the grain. It is most likely the ones who paid full price for the game at launch are the ones who would want all the content, cosmetic or not, and would be constantly putting their hands into their pockets just because the most desirable of items are not included in the core game. Micro-transactions are a marketing con job that are designed to bleed people of money without making them aware of how much they are actually spending.

The real downside of micro-transactions is you really don’t have an idea of the true cost of the game at the time of purchase and to fork out $60 and possibly $40 for a season pass is one thing but to realise the game you got is only really good because they held off the best items for additional purchases can push the game into multiples of the original cost (for some people). Sure you can open the door and do a little bit which seems appropriate but there is a very steep slippery slope from the doorway to just bleeding your fans dry.

Devs gotta eat too. Well if devs make a good game they will eat plenty by that alone. If the game can only exist with the inclusion of micro-transactions then something is not quite right with the core game to not be profitable on its own.

1 Like

Well hey, thats your prerogative. If you don’t want to pay for the extra content, you don’t have to. Free market, and all that.

If it is micro-transaction based from launch I won’t pay for the core content either. I don’t write blank cheques for anyone. I will get it on sale much cheaper later saving me money and taking food from the developers mouths.

Spiteful, but this is a free market. You earn your own money (I assume), and you spend it how you see fit. But I guarantee you the amount of money GBX and 2K have to gain through microtransactions far exceeds the amount lost from spiteful consumers boycotting the game.

FYI, I would avoid saying things like this on the developers own forum…

Thank you @reincarN8ed about bringing that up, it perfectly resembles my thoughts onto this topic!

And yes, @DontPanic , you have a point to - the core market is built up by buyers at launchdate. But te type of how a company uses microtranscaction for profits are very very different and widespread, some offer it as way to donate and openly say so, others really try to bleed of their victims as you said it.

Of course they are many (less popular) MMO´s out there ripping off customers and players - but most of those are merely poor browser games, made for rip off in first place. In that manor the market is pretty flooded with such profit-gameprojects.
On the other hand there are companies as “GrindingGears” who brought us Path of Exile, which offer customization for money clearly as way to donate.
If you want to donate money to a game-company instead of something else it might be weird, but its open to the gamer to decide. (PoE is free-to-play btw)

Games are difficult matter - its collaborative ART and a merchandise to sell at the same time. So you have 300+ people (artists, devs, testers, programmers) that want to live from what they do. Thats why I always buy games when I like them as artwork - as artist myself I want to support those.
Though until know I only bought game content related full DLCs, I´m not a type spending 3$ for a skin…

Microtransactions in previous Gearbox/2K titles were merely all for visual customisation. Its only for the looks, so noone really has an adventage.
I see those offers as a way to donate money to a company I want to support (much like Path of Exile does) not as way to rip of gamers.
Theres always someone stupid and somebody else to rip of these stupids. But there are also exceptions, so just lay back and wait for what GB/2K will serve us.
We talking about Battleborn here, not CandyCrush-Saga, so I´m relaxed about this issue.

1 Like