I’m sorry but you can’t be honest with yourself and say it’s about timing. The game gets updated weekly with things that should be in the game already.
It should have been in the game from the beginning, and we knew about it from the beginning. Where is the timing issue?
I agree with your point about privileging certain content. I don’t know what Gearbox is working on, or their business model. I don’t want to speculate.
But even if microtransactions are fairly innocuous when it comes to payment / content balance (and don’t create the ‘f2p’ nastiness of a game like Team Fortress - where you basically learn to judge who’s committed to the game by a kind of hat-based racial profiling) they do still change what the game is providing, what it’s asking for.
We are in such a hurry as consumers to get free content, and so willing to say how easy it is to overlook what that did to games (in-game marketplaces and advertisements) that I think we can lose sight of the value there is in finding a title you open and play without being pressured to buy anything else.
I mean more specifically the timing of the Marketplace and the introduction of the microtransactions. I just have a problem with adding $70 worth of DLC to a $60, $80 in the case of the Digital Deluxe, game 6 weeks after release.
I agree that these T2 skins as well as other fixes should’ve been in the game originally. At this point, it very much feels like Battleborn is an early access release and Gearbox/2K are trying to milk it for all it’s worth before having a fully realized product available.
If Gearbox had already fixed and added a bunch of stuff with the initial purchase, notice I didn’t say “free” because the game is not free, and had then decided around the Fall or Christmas that the next round of skins and taunts would be obtainable through microtransactions, that would’ve been much more acceptable to me, personally.
I honestly believe that the world would be a better place if someone did a case study with graphs and visualizations on how expensive it is to make and support a Live Game like this.
More importantly, I’d like to see that Case Study contain what percentage of the actual cost of development and support sales (base+DLC+Deluxe) actually cover.
I think people might be surprised.
While I completely understand the anger here, and many have made fantastic points about why they dislike micro-transactions, I also think that some might be underestimating what it really takes to keep the lights on, and to keep publishers happy enough to keep dumping resources into a game.
Because if the publishers aren’t happy – staff gets cut, resources for features get cut, planned free content gets cut, bugs take longer and longer to fix, and generally things end up much worse.
Optional micro-transactions seem like a fair trade to prevent the kinds of nastiness that happen when games hit the budget chopping block, in my opinion.
I’m saying the release date is irrelevant because it should have been there from the beginning and we were told about it.
Don’t spend the money on it.
How does it hurt people if I have the option to buy some colorful pixels…let me have my pixels man.
I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m just expressing my personal displeasure at the current implementation. If Gearbox gave DD/SP holders some Platinum coins I would honestly be happy.
As you say it’s so hard to made a good argument either way here without real figures.
But if a game needs more than the original asking price to keep the lights on, I would still prefer that funding be garnered from different means. That includes a higher original price, DLC advertised in steam store rather than in game, or a way that makes it clear what we’re paying for - is it the ongoing support of Battleborn at stake here, or just a few skins as a cash-earn side project? If Battleborn’s future really is deeply involved in this, microtransactions worry me because there’s a reasonable chance they won’t be popular.
The only problem I have with Devs and their money making is when the stuff SHOULD have been on the disc to begin with only to later charge you for it. DESTINY, I’m looking at you. At current, I think there is a large volume of stuff to do, either by yourself, or others that the money I paid for it is fine. If people want to pay for skins/taunts. etc good for them. Whatever, it’s their money. Hell, I don’t even have a problem with buying items.
It’s not just Battleborn, it’s all AAA games that aren’t immensely popular.
The problem is that the price of games hasn’t increased with inflation. We’re still paying the same $60 we paid for games back in the mid-90s. When you think about it, that’s insane.
They have artificially inflated those prices using DLC and Digital Deluxe, but since those are optional, they don’t really cover the true expense except in the case where the game sells boatloads.
Subscription fees used to make up the difference for games that required full time staffs, but people hate those worse than micro-transactions.
Micro-transactions are just the latest attempt to keep up with inflation for AAA games.
I think sometimes people equate the sorts of “buy everything” MTs that some free to play games use, with the more benign cash shops we’re starting to see in AAA titles. They exist for different reasons, I assure you.
All that being said, I hope that in the future, there are better ways to provide continued support for a game that don’t require micro-transactions to function.
Thing is bb didn’t only have dlc ,but also a season pass.To add microtransaction on the top of it not even the like of EA can get away with something like this.To be honest i don’t feel that production value of bb is high enough to even justify its original 60usd with 20 usd season pass ,but that’s subjective.I still remember a lot of you bashed the purely cosmetic microtransaction of ow.On the other hand BB’s microtransaction will give actual advantages .Now i would like to hear what those people think about this.
You’re basically right with this. Though I can’t comment on game prices in US dollars or the price of games over there in the mid-90s I do recall paying around £30 for PlayStation 1 games in the mid-late 90s and the same again for PlayStation 2 titles in the early 2000s. Playstation 3 (2007 onwards) and PlayStation 4 (2013 onwards) titles saw a price hike to £40 (we’re talking release prices here). So whilst there has been a price increase, it’s not as big a price increase as for many other things that we purchase (food, gas/electricity, fuel etc), they have gone up significantly more over that time.
Yet games are a lot more complex to create these days than they were in the past. Most games these days are online and have multiplayer aspects to them (PS1 and many PS2 games had no online at all) which we expect to work and be fixed/improved over time. The game design takes more time than before because of the power of the machines we use and what we expect to see visually and gameplay-wise out of these).
IGN had an article a while back about the cost of gaming:
The reality is, the cost to make a game needs to be recouped and a profit made by the companies who produce them. They simply can’t keep game prices low for years to come, not with increasing development costs and continued support for the life cycle of a game, plus we, the consumers, often want more than what we get on Day 1. So the choices they have to make are either to increase the overall price of games (let’s say to around £80 or approx $115) or to sell season passes (for between £15 - £40, that’s approx $20 - $55) with the promise of content and/or microtransactions. The development costs of these are less than the development costs of the initial game itself , so the season pass/microtransactions go towards recouping some of the costs and profits required from a game (especially as not everyone will buy these).
This is exactly the sort of information I wish I had time to look up when I wrote the reply. Thanks so much for this.
Tbh, I don’t mind the transactions because it feels similar to the BL2 customization packs where you can buy your favorite characters customs or not. And I don’t understand how GBX can be pushing the DLC release dates back if they never gave us a date to begin with? I might’ve missed it in a post somewhere but they have always stated dlcs and other goodies will be ready when they are ready.
Personally, I don’t mind waiting and I still have yet to purchase the season pass, but for now I don’t mind buying skins/taunts just for my main characters rather than spending large amount of in-game credits on packs that may not even have a skin/taunt I desire.
First if I could say what I truly wanted to,my post would be flagged…As it’s been many times before . Ok I agree wholeheartedley with this commentator Truly theres a lot of unappreciation floating in the air. I mean seriously they are implementing what they feel is best for both the community,and future gamers who are interested in this kick-ass creation they have given to us!!! Lets lighten up a bit shall we??? This is my first go at this particular genre of games,and although I do terrible at times Battleborn is now one of my favorite games of all time. Are there problems…Sure, but what games come without them…If you want nice skins in Smite,you have to pay for them!!! So what is the difference??? There really isn’t one, accept Smite is free to play and yes Battleborn was 60 bux well 80 something because my wife and I wanted the season pass. So believe me I get it. The people that are fixing the games problems , and the ones who create new skins ,characters …etc. are separate entities of the same company. Artist have to get compensation for their work as well as the common factory worker,or food inspector. My point being that micro transactions put food on the table for some, angers others,and have some feeling indifferent to the situation at hand. Ok , so I have to pay perhaps an additional fee for some extra snazzy taunts,and skins when we already paid 80 plus bones for the game and pass;however,being as both my wife and I are artist we know that the money we pay will help fund the art departments paycheck and YES we’re both damn mad that this game went on sale only weeks after we paid full price for it, and weren’t refunded at least SOME form of in-game payment or compensation…I mean C’mon, they could have at least given us some skins ,taunts ,or loot packs. One thing for certain though,We aren’t going to quit the game because of this,we aren’t going to threaten to switch over to Overwatch (Actually returned it after 2 days ) ,and we most certainly won’t write them an ill reputed post which would certainly get NOTHING done anyhow . If you read this,or if not…Thanx!!!
No.
Its ■■■■■■■■ because these items are locked behind paywalls. I’m okay with buying platinum for skins as long as you can earn it too, I.e., convert your in game gold into platinum. But they haven’t suggested this. So in no way does this make me want to play more-or at all-until a new mission is released.
Why do you deserve something you can’t pay for? It’s cosmetic only.
Would you yell at a car dealer for making you pay for a decal on your car? Yeah sure you bought the deluxe leather but that decal is extra.
I’m pretty sure they should/do set the price of their product to account for the cost and not pray that people take bait on micro transactions to stay afloat or to give them any kind of customer service.
Why am I going to buy another gearbox product if they could possibly be dead in the water without tons of extra income after the 80$ I already spent.
I’m also pretty sure you haven’t read fourm rules.
It’s 1 of two things, poor planning or greed. You pick.
Those games probably have larger, more stable player bases and don’t need the hit from showing MT colors.
If the opinion that it is a bad idea floods most of the players, it looks just the same to most of the people outside.
Look guys, it doesn’t matter what reason you use to justify micro transactions. You have to fave reality; this game can’t afford to lose any more players. This game is about to die and in what way is it a good idea to upset a good portion of the people keeping it alive? The reaction on the main thread sums up how people feel about this. The reason CoD and Overwatch can do this stuff is because lots of people actually play those games. There’s probably less than 1,000 active players on PC, declining by the day. It’s not good. And the one thing people think will save this game… is paying more money for skins for a game that might die in a month?
We will see how things play out
GBX doesn’t set the price of the product.
In fact, I would be surprised if they even have much say in the price of the DLC.
Base, AAA games are almost always priced at exactly the same price (before sales/discounts kick in).
DLC pricing is (often) decided by the publisher.
There are constraints to everything, and these aren’t decisions that can be made by a single person or even a single entity. It’s impossible to, with 100% certainty, price the product to account for all costs.
So instead of your either/or, I offer a third option: