Topic: There are micro transactions in mgs the phantom pain :(

@milero91: No this is not true, games have gone up in price. You cant compare to the snes generation as the carts cost money. Comparing to 1996 the average game on ps1 cost £25. Its now £50 on ps4.

The line it "costs more to make" is so companies can fleece the customer with micro transactions. Lets be honest gta v had brought in billions prior to the multiplayer component even being available for example.

@themcnoisy: Fair enough. The little bit of research I did seemed to suggest that games now, when considering inflation, are actually cheaper than ever. An example given with PS1 new games being priced at £30-£40 on release and then £20 when it had gone platinum.

Also, apparent cost of development for a few games:
1997 - Crash Bandicoot 2 - $2 million
1999 - Crash Team Racing - $2.4 million
2002 - Hitman 2 - €3.5 million
2005 - Call of Duty 2 - $14.5 million
2010 - Gran Turismo 5 - $60 million
2012 - Borderlands 2 - $30-35 million
2014 - Watch Dogs - $68 million

Minus a few anomalies it does appear dev /marketing etc costs have increased. I'm not an expert on all their businesses but as long as I'm not forced to buy it and I'm not disadvantaged for it then I don't mind.

If you can't sell it for £40/$60 then you're doing something wrong. the kind of DLC witcher is offering is a hefty chunk for a reasonable ish price. The micro transaction in phantom pain are just there for the masses of lazy people that want to make it very easy to complete. Nothing more.

@milero91: Game prices on the whole have remained quite static. Production costs have obviously increased - just on wages alone. I doubt a developer earns the same now as they did 10-15yrs ago. That doesn't mean that excuses micro-transactions or cutting things out to sell as DLC. For all the criticism aimed at CoD the on-disc contents haven't decreased. I guess they have more stabilised over the past few games though. Campaign is pretty much the same length. Multi-player generally has the same number of Maps and game-modes and of course there is the co-op option too. DLC hasn't gone up in costs either and has increased since CoD4 but again stabilised with 4 Maps and a co-op Map. I do take issue with the micro-transitions though as it has taken 'something' from the base game even though they are purely cosmetic. The number of Camo's in the base game hasn't dropped (as far as I can recall) but with the sale of better and more interesting camo's it makes the unlockable ones almost insignificant. I don't know many that are 'bothered' if they unlock 'gold' and seeing these in game meant something - now everyone is rocking a micro-transaction camo because they are 'better'. You could argue that the Advanced Supply Drops are bordering on Pay to Win. Buying these increases your chance of getting one of the better weapon variations and if you don't want the items you get, you can dismantle for XP which in turn helps you unlock more items and custom classes.

As far as I am concerned, DLC should add to the experience but not be essential. Things like map packs and again using CoD as an example, do add to the game. The core maps haven't changed in number - you don't get less now than you did so there is a 'historical' precedent. If BO3 for example only had 8 maps then you could argue that the game was 'cut' for the purpose of DLC. I personally feel that most (if not all) of the Witcher 3 'free' DLC was 'cut' from the base game for the purpose of giving it away afterwards as a PR exercise but as they are not charging its difficult to be too annoyed.

I doubt that MGSv will have Pay to Win micro transactions and more likely to have 'cosmetic' items for its MP or unlocks for weapons/attachments etc like Battlefield instead of earning them through play. If its the latter, I really do disagree with this!!

I guess it really doesn't matter if they do have micro-transaction that are purely cosmetic or buying your way to unlock the contents that can be earned - its not like I am forced to buy and I can still complete the challenges for the on-disc cosmetics but it is disappointing to see.

OK the production costs have gone up but so has the profits too. More people own a console now and so the market is bigger too. It gives them a bigger budget to invest more in development.

@themcnoisy: We already spoke about this once when you were upset about DLC:

https://www.pushsquare.com/forums/ps4/im_suffering_from_dlc_fa...

I did make the point that most PS1 games released at £39.99 or £34.99 and, after inflation, that's the equivalent today of around £70. One way publishers can keep selling games at the £34.99-£44.99 bracket and make money, as I see it, is to sell extras like DLC and Microtransactions for those who want to pay for it. In a time when one badly performing game can ruin a studio, I'm not surprised publishers require developers to include DLC's and so on before signing up to fund and publish a game. Of course more people own consoles and buy games now, which is why they are trying to appeal to as many types of people as possible by introducing these kind of features.

And as far as getting annoyed about it goes, there's way too many late 20's-30 something gamers with a chip on their shoulder already, just role with the punches and block what aspects you don't like out, it's just a fast moving industry trying to grow into itself.

@BAMozzy: Good point, suppose they sell a lot more copies now. And with regards to The Witcher DLC, I have to agree with you on that too...it's nice it's free but realistically it's likely stuff that could have been there but hasn't been. No real complaints though as like you've said it's free.

It is a really interesting debate. I do certainly see all your points and agree with them. I personally don't invest in microtrans mainly because I feel they aren't necessary but also because I want to complete the game as it was intended, not with paid for buffs and weapons etc.

It would be really interesting to actually see a few stats for some games like COD, GTA, ESO etc such as "Full production cost including marketing", "profit generated from game sales excluding DLC" and "profit generated from game sales including DLC/micro trans". That way we'd be able to judge whether we think profits are acceptable or not. Not stats I imagine exist anywhere though,

@milero91: Funny really as according to below Crash 2 sold 7.6 million copies, and GT5 sold 10.6 million. Yet the difference in development cost means GT5 cost an extra 58 million. Even if Crash 2 was going for £30 new this was still more than GT5 after inflation. (Of course, inflation factors here too, i.e 2 million in the 90's is worth less than 58 in 2010)

In fact, looking below, Crash 1, 2 and 3 sold more than Uncharted 2!

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/7678/gran-turismo-5/

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/28733/uncharted-2-among-thieves/

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/251320/top-10-selling-sony-ga...

I'm not surprised developers/publishers are looking to increase revenues!

If it is optional then I really don't care if it has micro transactions.

Also as @kyleforrester87 pointed out people rarely take inflation into account when complaining about game prices which normally negates what their point.

@kyleforrester87: That's interesting! Thanks for providing some stats Well then it does look like what I orignally thought then....games cost more and therefore DLC/microtrans are there to make up for loss in sales profit. Without all the stats I can only take a guess though.

@milero91: Activision-Blizzard released its first quarter earnings report for 2015 and it showed the company earned $1.28 billion USD in revenue for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2015 - this is in just 1 quarter although I can't find how much of that is 'profit'! For the quarter, EA posted $896 million in total net revenue, which compares to $914 this quarter last year. EA points out, however, that $896 million was above the company's guidance of $830 million. In terms of profit, that also fell, dropping from $152 million to $125 million for the latest period. These are QUARTERLY statements.

Even though EA's nett profit has dropped by $27m from the same quarter 2014 - it still made enough profit in one quarter to fund the complete development of nearly 2 'Watchdogs' and as these games are made over 'years' that $68m is spread over that period of time.

Destiny's revenue hit $500m in 24hrs according to their financial statement, the highest grossing new IP ever, GTAv made $800m in its first 24hrs, CoD:Ghosts made $1bn in its first 24hours. Obviously that's not ll profit but also shows that for these games, micro-transctions are not necessary to cover costs of development. I doubt Ghosts cost anywhere near $1bn to make over its 2 year development and bet it was 'profitable' within 24hrs of release. Even though the franchise may have seen a decline in sales, its still a very profitable franchise.

To quote from another website 'Ubisoft today reported earnings for its first quarter ended June 30 2014, announcing that the record-setting open-world action game Watch Dogs shipped more than 8 million units during the quarter, helping the French publisher's total sales jump by 374 percent to €360 million ($489 million). This is ahead of Ubisoft's previous expectation of €310 million in sales ($421 million). Ubisoft did not say how many Watch Dogs copies have actually been sold. The game sold 4 million units in its first week, but that is the only official sell-through number Ubisoft has released to date.'

Now considering the development cost was $68m and was still profitable - even with just 4m sales in the first week (unknown number of sales at the time of the Ubisoft report), I would say that games are potentially overpriced. The profit margins seem huge - $125m in a quarter... PURE Profit that's after all overheads, development costs etc....

Yup by the looks of things it's now okay to have your favourite franchises littered with micro transactions. I'm gonna leave it there as its just frustrating, I dont want to move with the times, as times were good 10 years ago when micro transactions were a glint in some horrible executives eye. And by the way final fantasy 7 is still the 3rd most expensive fame ever produced - without a micro transaction in sight. Dont do it Konami.

@themcnoisy: If you can unlock/accomplish it without paying then why is it such a big deal if there are short cut micro transactions?

@themcnoisy Dude, I get you. I don't like having microtransactions in big name games too, but if they're purely optional in a non pay-to-win environment, they're almost a non-factor. Yeah, some lazy guy with too much cash in his pocket might use them, but I think it's clear that the guys and gals here won't, nor the hardcore gamers will, and they're the crowd MGS mostly targets.

And honestly, Konami have shot themselves in the feet enough times that MGS is basically their crutch. And since they're so high on a "mobile future", it was probably inevitable that microtransactions would pop up in MGS sooner or later, and it looks like it's sooner.

@Jazzer94: I think the concern is that often when microtransactions are implemented as a feature, the devs then make it even harder than they normally would to obtain those things via normal play, essentially trying to herd consumers towards the microtransactions.

I think it's a perfectly valid concern, and one that I do share. However, I still think we will have to just wait and see exactly how it is implemented before getting worked up over it. If it's entirely unobtrusive and the rest of the game hasn't been re-balanced specifically to guide towards it, then I couldn't give a monkeys. If that's not the case though, I will be miffed to say the least.

Yes, the fact that the game has micro-transactions means the game has been designed in a way that either you grind or you pay. EA have been doing "time saving" dlc for some time now. It means you can pay to unlock stuff in Battlefield or NFS much quicker than everyone else. It does give you an advantage, so it can be annoying for those who don't pay and have to spend many hours to grind their way through to the good perks. MGS will probably be the same.

Unfortunately, all we can do is wait and see. It at least better not be in single player and be online only.

But the grinding is always going to be part of the game, or any game. For example the FF7 HD port will come with a character booster so you can level up your characters/generate money at the click of a button. The FF7 experience will still remain the same for those who don't want to use the character booster, grinding and all, so I don't see why this grind is being labeled as a negative. It's the sense of progression that makes all games fun. I want the best weapons in MGS5 to be difficult to get. What I don't want it for them to be boring to get, and that's where I'd draw the line at microtransactions existing. Some games, mostly free to play, just hit a wall where it either becomes impossible or just plain boring to continue without paying up some money. I've not seen this applied to any non free to play games, so I'm not really worried about it in this instance. In fact I'm not sure I can name one full price game that had microtransactions that was limited by those microtransactions.

@SteveButler2210: You are going to have to grind regardless for the base mode just like in Peace Walker, I don't think it will be an integral feature just a side option for the impatient.

Being able to buy the reward (with real world money) undermines the reward. Within the game it should be a closed loop that can't be exploited by outside interference. Famous game series like MGS are losing their integrity for some quick bucks.