Microtransactions and In-Game Purchases Shouldn’t Be the Standard
I generally leave the ranting on The Spinchoon to Brian (see: Fortnite is not for me) and Anthony (see: Loving and Hating PCs). I prefer to rant verbally, like I frequently do at Anthony, on Flix & a Six. Sometimes exceptions must be made.
I love playing video games so much; some might consider my purchasing history the last 5ish years a strike against that statement, but I actually think it gets to the heart of my anger right now. Looking back, I’ve seen the changes in the games industry, and realized my restraint in buying new games was induced by a few subtle developments that are a net negative on this pastime we love.
Microtransactions are killing video games.
Now, I know I’m not saying anything new. You’ve surely thought it yourself. I know I’ve read others opinions on it. But I’ve always felt kind of blasé about the topic in the past — sure it’s annoying but what can you do.
Something changed for me recently. I remember, when I first heard about microtransactions, I was confused. I heard this vitriol directed at the term that made me think some high crime was being committed. My first encounter was with some simple cosmetics available for purchase. That seemed… fine? I never cared too deeply about that sort of thing; offer me customization options for my player character and I’ll always dabble, but I never put too much emphasis on it ultimately.
Then came perks and packs. Again, I didn’t care too much, for the most part. I don’t recall it bothering me in any of the multiplayer-forward games I used to be into (COD, Halo, etc) but eventually I grew less enamored with those. Honestly, I can’t even recall if those games HAD them back then because I was never gonna pay for skins or unlockable guns anyway.
The first time I remember spending a few dollars on any were in Mass Effect 3, and, again, it didn’t really bother me, as the packs were clearly defined in what was offered for purchase — it’s interesting looking back now, as this was the first major console release in the U.S. to have loot boxes at launch.
Most of the complaints — justified complaints, for the record — in the years since have sprouted up around 2 major points of contention:
- competitive advantage and
- not receiving fair value
Mass Effect 3 passed both those tests, keeping the complaints to a dull murmur.
Since the multiplayer component of the game was entirely cooperative, jealousy over another player’s loadout was kept to a minimum, since you were standing alongside that player, rather than staring up at them after they mowed you down. In most competitive multiplayer games, getting annihilated by your enemy and realizing you could only become peers by playing 500 hours — or shelling out $50 in the HOPES you would get the same firepower — created a lot of righteous anger.
Inextricably linked to that is the fact that most modern loot boxes can be REALLY vague about what you are getting in them. If you do decide to purchase — begrudgingly or not — there’s no guarantee you even get what you wanted; you might have to dig into your wallet again. Add into it the fact that you have such ridiculous thresholds to cross, getting to earn enough “experience” (coins, credits, crystals, etc.), and the process can be legitimately frustrating.
Consider the difference between ME3 and the Star Wars Battlefront loot box fiasco. You could buy from the lower two tiers in ME3 after one round at the easiest setting. Win a round from the hardest difficulty and you could go up another tier or two. An hour of play at the top difficulty would net any of the top tiers, of which there were a few options, highlighting volume of unlocks, characters, or weapons. You really never needed to spend cash, but you could if you wanted; everything was reasonably attainable, and even if you didn’t unlock what you wanted, the equation was very much in your favor to get something you would still be pleased with.
Conversely, Star Wars Battlefront was the most offensive version of the loot box I’ve ever encountered. I played for a few hours, early in its run, and tried to buy a pack. I couldn’t buy a single useful thing. I almost threw my controller, since I had gotten to the point of play where I should have been achieving competence, and I was still getting mowed down like so much ankle height grass.
It was then that I realized how insidious and pernicious this phenomenon was (guess I was late to the party).
Fast forward to a few days ago, and I saw this article on The Escapist.
I snapped.
To be clear, my anger isn’t directed at The Escapist or the author in any way — I’m a fan of the site. What set me off was the new normal that is in-game purchases and microtransactions, and the world view that a major game release NOT having those things is noteworthy. The crazy thing is, it IS noteworthy, but how the hell did we get here?
Games have had expansions and DLC in the past. And while that has chafed me, and others, to some degree or other, in general, it’s a lot easier to justify the expenditure for a fully fleshed out increase to your game experience. Even at a higher price point than any of these loot boxes, you can embrace a continuation of your experience, if it’s for a game you love. But for a minor tweak to the repetition-focused loop of multiplayer only games, a lack of certainty, coupled with potential for out of control spending, is every bit the rabbit hole that gamers, critics, and even lawmakers fear it is.
The current state of affairs in the game industry dictates that it is noteworthy to not have critically important microtransactions in a game. That is an insane place to be, as it shouldn’t be up to the player to “earn” a complete game experience. Something needs to change; I am sympathetic to the need for studios to make money on the products they spend so much time and effort on creating, but they’re holding their consumers hostage.
It’s more akin to a drug dealer and drug addict relationship than it is typical brand and consumer transaction.
I say that without any snark or irony. It’s time to get back to actual market dynamics. And in that regard, there are two legitimate ways to go. Either raise the initial price of the game — console game prices have stagnated for a decade, contrasted against the inflation of all other markets — or lower the initial game price, if you’re going to foist these microtransactions on the end user. People can complain all they want about predatory practices of loot boxes in free-to-play games, but you understand the nature of that relationship at the outset: you don’t have to pay a cent to play the game, but you can pay to enhance what started as a free experience
Too many of these major game studios have looked to squeeze every cent out of every single opportunity; it’s the assembly line, mass production model. That doesn’t work for a creative venture, which video games have become. Certainly, there’s something to be said for that approach for mindless, competitive games, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but every game doesn’t — shouldn’t, in fact — need to be a Battle Royale/MMO/looter shooter. Look no further than Respawn’s Jedi: Fallen Order, which blew away sales projections, to see that there is still a robust market for quality endeavors in the realm of solely story driven single player games.
A game that, for the record, didn’t include a single microtransaction.
If you enjoyed this, read more from me here at The Spinchoon, and follow us on Twitter @TheSpinchoon & @AlessandroB1187. My most recent reviews were on Season 2 of Amazon’s Jack Ryan, and my contribution to our takes in Triumvirate Review- Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. We post three times weekly, on Sports, TV, Video Games, Movies, and more. We have a movie and beer podcast too: Flix & a Six.
