Poll: Where Do You Stand on Microtransactions?

@get2sammyb nice example. I generally feel they should be abolished period, but overwatch is the only thing I’ve spent money on. They should be cosmetic things you can get without paying for it. I only felt comfortable doing it because I wanted to support a company that gives me so much free content. But if it was anything other than cosmetic, it would turn me off from the game.

@get2sammyb Similar situation to Rocket League, where they've provided a lot of free content but have just added cosmetic perks as paid extras that directly help fund the competitive/esports scene. More than happy to spend a little money on that (especially as I got the game for free with PS Plus). But when it's a AAA-game it's a tougher pill to swallow.

i think there should have been more distinction on the kinds of microtransactions in the poll. i am ok with them for purely cosmetic items and you get the item desired, so if you want to play uncharted as doughnut drake that's fine. i don't think it's ok for gameplay affecting items (single or multiplayer), randomised loot, or linked with in-game progression.

For me it’s simple, if the game is eithet free to play or paid and multiplayer focused without dlc and with regular updates like gta V than microtransactions are welcome, they cover the costs of free updates in my mind.
If the game is single player only game or a multiplayer game that has either dlc or no post launch update support than the game has no place for MCT.

@get2sammyb True, it really is a situational thing. I'm not blanket against them or anything, and truth be told I don't think I've ever played a game where I think it's been 'ruined' because of it. But then I don't tend to play many games that feature them I guess.

Blame mobile gaming . That's where it started

As long as it doesn't affect the game, I could not care less. Internet people are overly angry and easily upset over things that hardly ever affect them.

Getting an advantage in a mp game is bad. Getting skins or whatever is beyond fine. If people want to throw money at them, I say let them.

For games that continue to get updates it's either micro-transactions or paid dlc right? I'd much rather get my gambling loot crate fix in rocket league and have some cosmetics to mess around with then have to pay $5-$15 twice a year (which also fragments online communities).

Overall micro transactions in Free 2 play games are ok by me. I expect it. Do I care about cosmetics? Not really. I care about 2 things - firstly, loot boxes and gambling. It IS gambling if real world money is invovled.

Secondly, to make more and more money, games are going to slowly start to make users need to buy them, otherwise why bother? Shadow of War has its true ending and credits hidden behind a 30 hour grind fest or a far less grind fest IF you take a punt on loot boxes. A fact that very few people in the mainstream gaming media are really addressing.

Anyone saying I don't care because it doesn't affect the games is being naive that it won't affect them eventually. First it was mobile games, then free to play games then multiplayer games, now single player games. Almost all the major AAA releases in the second half of this year have loot boxes or some sort of paid parts. In Star Wars BF2, from what I have read, it could even affect your performance.

Also, for anyone who thinks publishers need them to make money - where has that come from? Activision, Ubisoft, EA Warners are publishing insane profits. This isn't an industry contracting because games have stayed at $60. Plus that is already ignoring season passes, special editions, merchandising. They have plenty of revenue streams.

I love gaming. I want to enjoy these games but I want value for money and I want my time and wallet respected.

@BLP_Software They get paid the flat rate like you said, which they wouldn't be getting at all for that project if there was no demand/market for dlc. There's plenty of jobs that don't get commissions, so not sure that's really a great argument by itself.

If it's a game that receives alot of free or regular updates post-launch or requires devs to often maintain servers, then I really don't mind microtransactions and I'll even sometimes purchase them (games like ESO, Overwatch and the like). However, they really have no right being in games with a mostly singleplayer aspect like Shadow of War. It just seems like an artificial way of squeezing extra money out of customers on top of the often bloated DLC/season pass costs.

I have no issue with cosmetic only DLC but only if these are sold directly and nt through some 'random' loot box. I have no issue with a random loot box if these are ONLY in game and only purchaseable with in-game currency (that also doesn't include selling in-game currency for real money). Getting some 'random loot' for playing the game is fine but to sell 'random' loot with real money is totally wrong!!

As for the 'cost', lets be honest here, we are already paying a LOT for a game and those 'games' are 'profitable' with relatively 'small' sales figures. The additional cosmetic content could very well be added free - based on how profitable the game was of course. The more the game sells, the more profit they make, the more additional content they add for free which again may fuel more copies of that game. All those 'cosmetics' etc can't cost much comparatively.

The reason these 'loot crates' are becoming increasingly used in games is because it boosts 'profit margins' significantly - far more than selling these individually and its all virtually pure 'profit' on top of the 'profit' they are making on sales of the game - literally trying to bleed their customers dry to ensure they get maximum profit margins. Don't give me any BS about the 'costs' of game development etc as I can easily quote the billions in profit that these Publishers make every year. Its now getting to the point though where they are 'cutting' content that they traditionally had in games to sell you a 'chance' at getting these 'back' on top of the price to buy the game, the price to play these online (PS+ and Internet charges) and its not like we don't have overheads ourselves. Youtubers and reviewers probably don't care so much - they get their games free or can make more money than they spend by doing some 'unboxing, opening, early access to DLC and paid for excursions to the 'home' of the game...

Its a JOKE! It has to stop!!! Its bad enough that they charged £2-4 for a camo or armour set but now those 'sets' can cost ridiculous amounts of money. Its also skirting very close to the 'Pay to Win' model too - look at SW:BF2 and tell me how its not 'Pay to Win'??

If it continues, the gaming community will break or we could see a 'shell' of a game with virtually all the content in 'Loot crates'. A basic MP with just 1 weapon per class and all the others, all the camo's and customisation, all the attachments etc etc all in a 'loot crate'

Activision and co. have already found plenty of other streams of income, like tax evasion. On top of that, we are already spending €60 on a game (or €500 if you're crazy enough to buy the newest gold edition from Ubisoft), then there's season passes, regular DLC, pre-order bonuses, deluxe editions. The last thing we need is micro-transactions and, even worse, loot boxes, which are just micro-transactions hidden behind a gambling machine.

These big companies aren't scrounging to stay alive. Their CEOs don't live in tiny houses with barely enough money left to feed their families. They're already drowning in money. They don't need any more. And since micro-transactions can, and will, have an impact on gameplay, whether it becomes a endless grind if you don't buy them in Shadow of War, or whether the game becomes pay-to-win as seen in Battlefront II, they will have an impact, otherwise there's no incentive for us to buy them. Yes, they were innocent in Overwatch, but we've already passed that age.

The issue I have with microtranscations is even the good ones normalise the bad. How many times have you heard "But it's optional!" and now we're seeing Injustice 2 hide moves behind them, Forza and Tomb Raider hold game options, War for Mordor an ending.

If it's cosmetic, fine. If it gives people an unfair advantage, then I have a problem.

I've never spent a penny on microtransactions. I don't have a problem with it as long as it doesn't affect my experience, but that is NOT the case anymore.
Features that used to be free are now hidden behind pay walls. Content gets cut and sold on later. Microtransactions are shoehorned into single player games. It's incredibly frustrating.

I don't believe Microtransactions/ Loot boxes need regulation. Don't overly promote it (unlike SWB2 Beta), don't let it be 'pay-to-win', make progression obtainable and it's fine. There needs to be personal responsibility.

I fully expect SWB2 & Shadow of War to sell significantly worse than its predecessor (they'll still sell millions). The publishers likely won't care as they make the difference back from 'whales'.

The worrying thing is that things are going to get worse, before they get better.
At least some people are making a stand.
https://www.techspot.com/news/71327-review-aggregator-site-opencritic-standing-up-loot-boxes.html

'Without paying, it could take an estimated 3600 hours to unlock every gun in Star Wars Battlefront 2'- just think about that!

@get2sammyb tbf to Blizzard they are one of a few developers who actively promote longevity in its titles and has been relatively open when it comes to future plans. Diablo 2 was supported for a million years or something.

You cant say that about any of the other companies involved in lootboxes.

I want a choice to hide all lootboxes in game. If that means I face a bigger grind so be it. Problem solved, case closed. For those who want it they can keep it. As the option is toggled off my family wont even know they exist.

@johncalmc Pretty much said it for me. Almost word for word.

Microtransactions are more or less small timesavers. They're not bad by themselves, but they're so easy to abuse, and have been abused so much that my opinion on the practice is very low. At this point, I'd rather see them gone, but that's not happening unless every game with them somehow bombs hard.

The best anyone can do is not blindly support the practice. Get knowledgeable about this before throwing your money.

@johnny30 Mobile and PC gaming...

My stance:

Single player offline games- no reason to have micro transactions, and I won't support a game that has them.

Multiplayer online games- not a fan of micro transactions if the game is full price, but it's a bit more understandable in an online format.

Free to play games- totally understandable to have micro transactions if the base game is free.

if there gonna put them in the game it should release at a budget price

Microtransactions are going to far 3 versions of games, preorder bonuses plus seasonpass and now lootboxes to......

The only game I've ever spent money on microtansactions is Overwatch. And as Sammy has explained, it's not a bad thing in it. But in Shadow of War it ruined it for me. I know the game is great, but I refuse to buy it at launch. I'm not a fan of Battlefront, but if I were, I'd never buy that game unless they significantly changed its progression system. BF2 looks like it's straight up pay to win.

I think the idea of microtransactions is often extremely dumb. It might just be my choice of games, but I have very rarely encountered them if at all. I think there can be a lot of malicious intent behind microsanctions, especially if the game is designed to encourage you to use them and in those cases I think they are awful. However I don't have much of a personal vendetta against them because I've never felt compelled to buy them, and as far as I know in a lot of cases it is very easy for the player to refuse.

And it really depends on the content and when it's made. If it's something like a cosmetic item, could be shipped with the game at launch but is locked behind a paywall, that is avarice and that should be included with the game I payed £50 for. However if it's made after the game I don't mind too much.

@adf86 Well i played non stop for the whole event got them all but its not doable in a normal way.

@Tulio517 Kind of a crappy thing to say with Overwatch you see dropping massive amounts of stupid sprays so you have a little change of getting the skins. Yes Overwatch the game i really like makes me really mad with these crappy ways of making the rewards a pain. I always quit for weeks after the events because of the massive grinding.

@get2sammyb If microtrananctions are used to fund DLC, I get don't why publishers don't simply get customers to pay for the DLC itself. To me it makes a lot more sense if people genuinely want something, to directly pay for it rather than being given the false illusion that the players haven't payed for the DLC.

@DerMeister Lets be honest the build the games to make you grind so you pull your wallet. Overwatch somehow always gets a pass but somehow they are kings in dissapointing sprays, icons.

Loot boxes are an effective way to get children or vulnerable people into gambling without it being illegal due to using a loophole in current laws, thus exploiting them.

That's a fact. But is that ethical? The fact people even have to think that question over is terrifying.

You don't need these games. If you don't like microtransactions, don't just boycott them, boycott the game full stop.

They should be abolished, comma, period, full stop.

Cosmetics are still an evil thing unless you can grind for it. The cleverest implementation of loot boxes is obviously FIFA and their ultimate team. And by cleverest I mean the way they've twisted it and tricked millions of children into paying for loot boxes that most will be "sold" on for because they didn't get what they wanted inside. I don't have a problem with lootboxes at all when it's done correctly and purely cosmetic. It's buying abilities straight away which is a bit dodgy.

Also... What's the point in paying for skins on a first person shooter when you can barely see yourself? 😂😂😂

@Octane

What did I miss that SW:BF2 is P2W? Are there powerfull weapons which you only can get by spending real money?

I really don't care about microtransactions. When a game is supported like Blizzard does with Diablo 3 and Overwatch, I don't mind to spend an extra $20 on lootcrates once or twice a year.

They have no place in anything but free games and even then they should be fair and not the cynical nonsense that invades most of the free to play junk that dominates a phone's app store. Look at games like Path of Exile to see how the system can work if both publisher and customer has respect for each other.

I see Overwatch getting a free ride in the comments, but even if you do think microtransactions are justified in a full priced game then you have to at least question the way they are implemented. Lootboxes are unquestionably designed to target that endorphin rush people get from gambling and make getting items you may want a lot harder than if the items were at least sold separately.

The strange thing about microtransactions is they seem to only be found in games that are expected to reach the top of the charts anyway. New (potential) franchises avoid using them, yet still do very well financially which shows they are not needed for games to make a good amount of profit, but instead are there to make even more profit at the detriment to the users experience.

Don't care. I play single player games and I don't pay to play online. Thank you everyone for supporting the publishers with buying games at launch, dlc's, season passes and microtransactions.

Now, just keep all them "Complete & GOTY Editions" coming for me.

Folks, there are a lot of games out there to play. You do not have to deal with this nonsense.

@Kohaku In theory you can get everything by playing just the game; however, by doing some generous calculations based on what was in the demo, you need to spend several thousands of hours playing the game if you want to unlock everything. And since the virtual currency is handed out at a flat rate, you can't speed up the process by, you know, being good at the game.

And yes, you get obtain stuff like the 100% invincibility on Boba Fett when using your jetpack for example. If we're realistic about it, you need to spend money on this game if you want those gold or platinum(?) tier star cards, or if you want to unlock all the weapons in game. And this is how you upgrade your character. So people that spend money on loot boxes, will undoubtedly have an advantage over those who don't.

@get2sammyb As long as there are ways around it, I don't see that as too much as an issue. For example if there is a specific person you want to play with, one has DLC one doesn't, don't most games simply put both players into a lobby where old maps only are selected.

And if it gets to the point where the game is very old so there are too few players, maybe then they could consider making DLC cheaper or greatly reduced to merge the 2 halves.

Not to mention microtransactions themselves, have the potential to create splits in the community, especially if they are pay to win.

I don't like tham generally, but have occasionally bought a couple of cosmetic things in ESO. If you don't like them, just don't buy them. What I really don't like i pay to win stuff.

Just say no....
...to microtransactions
...to loot boxes
...to DLC that should be in the main game

Hey everybody, if anyone's unsure how to vote in this poll just send two pounds/dollars (delete where applicable) to me and you'll get a randomly-selected answer! (Answer arrives automatically on purchase)

Free to play only. Also pay to win games should be abolished...

I'm not really that bothered about micro-transactions myself because they're entirely optional and I hardly ever buy any. The only big no no is these randomised loot boxes. Imagine a peddler asking Geralt if he wanted to buy a chest from him without telling him what's inside?

Remember the good old days when you would unlock cosmetic items just by completing a game?

I've said this before, but imagine FF VII releasing in today's game development environment...so many microtransaction opportunities.

Vincent and Yuffie...
Optional side quests...
Chocobo races and the arcade...

Until people stop caring about their financial investments, pension funds, retirement funds, etc., publicly-traded companies and venture-funded companies are going to constantly seek revenue streams.

When players expect an MMO, like Destiny 2, to be constantly maintained for years to come without charging a monthly subscription fee (unlike WOW and FFXIV), Bungie and Activision has to come up with alternative revenue streams in addition to the game's upfront costs and DLC. Destiny 2 is basically taking the same business model as Guild Wars 2's.

Most microtransactions in triple-A games have been unobtrusive so far, Destiny 2 included. I have no problem with those which are cosmetic and are not dependent on a game's progress. I have yet to do business with microtransactions in triple-A games, but I understand the business costs of developing and maintaining large-scope games, especially those with online and back-end services.

When a double-A game with ZERO microtransactions, such as Agents of Mayhem, in which its developers are getting laid off, is getting ZERO press for not having microtransactions, then I think Deep Silver and Volition should start looking into including some in their next games.

@bronZfonZ Let's be honest, the press isn't going to start writing articles about games not having microtransactions.

@bronZfonZ ''but I understand the business costs of developing and maintaining large-scope games'' How much does it cost? How come companies can make hundreds of millions in profit each year if it all was so expensive to maintain?

It's like when people say platform holders need the monthly subscription to keep their servers up and running, even though we all know that PSN was more profitable than the entirety of Nintendo last year, and most servers are P2P and not dedicated servers.

Everyone says they know how much these things cost, yet we have no idea. All I know is that none of the big companies are short of money...

random loot boxes that makes games literally P2W and therefore cater to the addictive sites in humans, needs to be put under legal control, imho. At least they need to be restricted.

These „games“ are nothing else than a slot machine. Just more shiny. Its gambling in its evil form but covered in sheeps clothing.

As the only entertainment industry which absolutely screws over the people who actually make the games, I’m sick of publishers screaming poor all the time. Does anybody else remember when you didn’t pay $60 for an empty husk of a game (Battlefront), only to have it actually finished a year later. If you spent the extra $50 on the season pass. Micro transactions are crap but the real exploitive behaviour are loot boxes. I’m paying you real money so at least have the decency to let me see what the hell I’m buying.

@get2sammyb but imagine if I could actually choose what I was buying, instead of it being random. But it’s not really random in most cases. In most games the the stuff people want has an astronomically low drop rate you better be prepared to put down some serious money.

No issue with them in games. They have never ruined the experience for me. Happy to support games beyond the initial purchase. Games companies are not charities and they are not forcing anyone to buy them. Vote with your wallet if you do not support this practice by boycotting the games. Or buy them 2nd hand and really stick two fingers up at them.

A scourge of mankind. The decline of western civilization. Microtransactions are evil.

@Flaming_Kaiser Sure, it can get really annoying, but like Sammy said, I believe it's better with it. I haven't really spent much money on it, and it's really infuriating when you lose an event skin, but without the whales funding the game for us there wouldn't be such a constant stream of free content. Just don't spend money on it and accept the fact that you're never going to get all the skins without a serious grind. I focus on getting everything for my main, which is very doable, and don't lose my head over the rest. Could it be less of a grind? Sure, It's not perfect, far from it. But at least it doesn't harm gameplay.

Dispise them.
DLC is alrready bad enough, where a complete game is getting chopped up so it can be sold back to us in chunks.
But the fact that they expect us to pay, after all that for a game we already bought at full price, is beyond the pail

The only game I've spent more on DLC and keys for loot crates than the actual game is Rocket League. I paid $5 for the game and I've spent about $30 in DLC and keys. I also have over 150 hours into it, and I feel like Psyonix has earned my money and my trust with all of the extra free content and updates they've given us. Other than that, I haven't really been bothered to spend extra on loot crates in other games. I've never even considered buying crates in Overwatch, because I'm not totally involved in the lore or skins, but i do have friends that have spent over $100 to have their favorite skins.

The 1% in the poll must be the whales I keep hearing about.

As long as it's not pay to win I couldn't care less

@Lonejester there's always the option of a subscription fee, like WOW, WOW have been running for so much time and has a high quality standard for the balance of the game. And this is because they know how much they have to spend on the game, because is a fixed amount of money for player.

Don't know why people think that paying for a monthly subscription is something bad, when is the better option out there.

I pay for a game 1 time, in the beginning. No DLC, No microtransactions, no season pass, nothing. It's why I rarely buy day 1 anymore, usually I just get the GOTY version with all the DLC thrown in for cheap.

I don't like micro-transactions at all even when they don't effect game play, they tend to effect the reward system in games! I buy very little DLC for games, I have to really love the game or they have to show a lot of added content. Most of the them I just move on the the next game I want to play.

Micro Transactions are WAY over priced!! Simple artwork skin type should be sold for change not dollars. How many thousands of dollars should be earned for a new outfit vs cost+ profit needed??

I don't care about micro transactions as long as I am not forced to use them, e.g. P2W micro transactions.

@get2sammyb Spot on.
I'd like to add that if the microtransations don't have an impact on MULTIPLAYER components of mostly single player full priced games (Shadow of War) then what's the problem if a player likes to spend 5/10 more euros to get xp boosts or weapons? Know what I mean? It's your money and it's not impacting other players so why not! Like Assassin's Creed Origins...it's YOUR CHOICE to buy loot boxes and get weapons in the game...it's AN OPTION! You won't influence other people experience by getting weapons faster...it's your own experience

As long as they're only cosmetic stuff I'm fine with it. That being said, developers tend to make those items hard to obtain so some players would be tempted to buy the cosmetic content. haha

@get2sammyb agreed

@AFCC Because the games are made with MTs in mind. They're grindy, or tedious. The last chapter or Shadow of War is a 10-20 hour grind. It does affect the gameplay, because the publishers want there to be an incentive for you to buy the MTs, because what's the point if there's no incentive?

@JoeBlogs Publishers already found ways to cover those costs with DLC, deluxe editions, season passes, pre-order bonuses, online subscriptions, etc. Mind you, game prices have gone up, remember how they used to be $50? $50 in 2007 is pretty much $60 today. The prices have been adjusted for inflation for the last decade.

On top of that, how come a developer like CD Projekt RED is able to release a successful and profitable game with a relatively small budget, yet it's the games that sell ten million+ each year that need the extra income from revenue? And it's not as if these big publishers are bleeding money, they are already posting I don't know how many millions in profits each year, and that was before this entire MT debacle(!).

@JoeBlogs @Octane I hear this a lot and I'm not attacking you for stating it but I have seen zero evidence of it other than games used to cost £60 and still do but inflation etc. If AAA games cost so much to make and were not profitable... the publishers would be out of business en masse or we wouldn't get AAA games.

Back in the day, the business WAS different. Phsyical media cost more to make plus the gaming audience was far far smaller. Distribution cost more. The evidence is that profits are increasing for publishers, obscenely. Triple AAA development is expensive, the risk is high but that is the same as any entertainment releasing a large product.

Video games are big business - I get that. Profits have to be made, no one is doing it for charity. However if there was not money and profits to be made, no major company would be doing it! There clearly is and Micro transactions don't fund games, they supplement income with low cost high sale price. They drive profit margins, not game development.

I think that this is quite destructive and short sighted. If (and I know this is sky is falling talk) this trend continues and more and more games do more and more outrageous things, core gamers are going to stop supporting these games. Looking on the board here, most people are put off by the practice. I am already not going to bother buying several good games at launch I wanted because I just don't want to support this. I may buy them when reduced (or hey, second hand) which is sad because overall, the games look quality from a dev point of view.

@JoeBlogs in the 90s you were paying for the cartridge. Also Nintendo got fined millions for price fixing.

Amiga AAA games were £20-£25. Which is the comparable media cost.

This arguement comes up alot. But if a game sells 2.5 million copies at £50 a pop its £150,000,000. Thats a crazy amount of money. Hardly any games sold that many in the 90s bar a few big games.

@JoeBlogs On top of what @themcnoisy said you also have to figure in other factors - the market is much bigger for gaming now so it is easier to make a profit at the same cost. Logistics are much cheaper and the internet combined with cheaper media has removed the need to in most case to even ship anything. The actual physical content of games is massively reduced (I don't remember the last time I saw a big box including a large manual and usually some extra bits and pieces outside of a $100+ special edition). I can also say in the UK that while RRP has barely moved, the actual price you pay from the retailer has increased significantly in the last decade.

There are other reasons too, but look at it this way - (big) movies are comparable these day to (big) games in cost to make/market etc, yet movies are a quarter of the cost of games and still make massive profits. The market for movies is so large it can do this, but I've seen data recently putting the game industry as a more profitable industry than the film one and this was before the current set of microtransactions and lootboxes invaded our games.

@OutspokenHuman The problem with that is that games used to have cheat codes and secrets that did the same thing for no extra money, it is another example of content cut out of games to sell back to you for extra money.

@JoeBlogs @kyleforrester87 Don't worry guys, I'm such a pessimist that no time has been golden, even the showers.

Seriously though, I don't think that anyone that buys games that have MT's in them or even purchase one are part of the problem and it would be a complete hypocrisy for me to tell anyone how to spend their money. I aim this purely at Publishers (not even devs as they clearly don't put them in out of choice most of the time).

I totally get that this situation may not bother or even affect some people very much. Everyone's gaming habits are pretty different, and as Kyle says, if I can't get what I want from the big AAA, I have a feeling smaller devs will still get me what I want or I'll just lose interest in gaming.

That said, I also have the view that this does affect a lot of peoples enjoyment of the game and in five years time, IF (big if) this becomes the norm and you can't buy any game without a whole bucket load of these things being thrown at you the moment you boot up then it will be too late to moan or worse, people are going to be turned off gaming.

It's a shame though, I want to like Shadow of War - I just don't have the time to grind and grind for 30 hours to see an ending to something I have already bought when it is clearly designed to make me pay more. I guess some people do or aren't bothered by the grind and that's cool. Just for me, I'm being denied something.

Unless it's purely cosmetic, I don't like microtransactions in games.

Multiplayer: They make booster packs that essentially can get a player to the highest level and equipment at the press of a button. Considering that balance patches are a constant thing in these online games, it's clear that these gamers get a huge lead over your regular player who's going up the ranks naturally.

Singleplayer: Everything becomes piecemeal. All of a sudden, armor doesnt just consist of three pieces, but more like seven. Then these are split further into rare item levels and sold as booster packs.
Besides that, it completely ruins immersion and just turns your game into another store front. It may as well directly connect to my BestBuy account, because I won't feel like a hero if I'm reading "Buy this Booster Pack!" in some corner of my inventory.

There needs to be a game that openly mocks this, so it can start a conversation between developers and publishers.

For me it cheapens the experience. Seeing them in game is a harsh reminder that the developers job is to make money for their publishers, from us gamers.. first & foremost.

There are a few exceptions that continue to support their titles post-release, at no extra cost than the £50 we paid already. The opposite side consist of guys like Ubi / EA who milk their tired-ass franchises every year & cram in as much of this MT nonsense as they see fit.

I feel this is the state of gaming now, & we've come too far for 'voting with your wallet' to make any difference. They may well be optional now, but give it time, & I reckon even AAA single player titles will be designed like mobile games in that all of the good content (that you'll see in tv ads, the E3 presentations etc) will be locked behind a paywall, & unless you fork out the hideous grind will make the game barely worth playing.

This is just MT's.. It isnt even taking into account the ever inflating pre-order bonuses, deluxe editions, gold editions, 'accelerators', season passes etc.

By the time this comes to pass we'll be looking at £60 as a standard pricepoint just for the base title, with no bells & whistles.

I don't mind them as long as they are pay to win. Overwatch is brilliant in this and they make tons of money via lootboxes.

@JoeBlogs What is interesting is that it is also splitting the gaming media. Some people aren't mentioning it or even caring about it but... Polygon said this about the grind to get the ending. I think Gamespot said something similar.

"When you run out of in-game money, you have two choices: Make a huge time investment by hunting down orcs in your game world and earning chests via vendetta missions, or spend some real money to get the more powerful orcs you need now. Does the game ever force you to spend money? No. I’m sure you can get to the end of Shadow Wars without spending a dime, as long as you’re patient and persistent. But locking progress through this mode (and, again, toward the game’s secondary ending) behind either spending more money or doing tons of tedious busywork feels at least greedy if not predatory."

Now to be fair, I have read other reviews like Kotaku who said they didn't feel like they had to spend not to grind but for me (who loves endings and seeing the credit) this just sounds too tedious and unnecessary. Again, I don't mind if this was for trophies or some bonus collecibles but having story cut scenes and credits is worrying.

@kyleforrester87 Well I do quite like going choppy chop chop on orcs necks in Shadow of Mordor so I was defo one the original fans.

A little grinding for reward can be fine - I don't like unncessary grind because I have limited gaming time but if a grind is optional or semi optional then fine and I think if balanced right, it can reward players who want to stay in that world. I just hate the idea that grinding for minimal reward become game design to make people like me spend a little extra cash.

I think it was in For Honor where someone found to actually complete all the gear or something you would need to play for over a year at like 7 hours a day or something (or very quickly if you paid).

I remember when I first was directly exposed to microtransactions with Mass Effect 3 and I tricked myself into thinking it was OK to drop more than 100 bucks total on in-game guns and such. Needless to say, I've learned my lesson, but even in the following years I was still hooked by season passes here and there. I don't really buy AAA games anymore (nothing these days seems to interest me anymore, i was even one of the odd ducks who couldn't get into Breath of the Wild and got rid of it without even finishing it) so I'm not really exposed to them outside of the odd mobile game I get. Even so, I'm not going to spend 60 bucks on a game and then spend even more money unless it's a major expansion or something. Free to play games are different, though. If I like the game and want to support it, I'll throw some money their way occasionally.

What about the games that skin you for everything?

Destiny 2 - full price game, £30 Season Pass, AND microtransactions.

Okay, if people want to pay for this stuff, it's their money. But there'll be a tipping point... the more people demonstrate that they're willing to go a long with it, the more they'll do it, and the worse it will get. It'll end up where you'll run out of ammo in Battlefield 8 and they'll be charging you 20p for a new clip. Sure, that sounds ludicrous... but not so long ago, a lot of people would have said it was ludicrous to think that people would pay for coloured clothing.

@JoeBlogs Did IGN finish game though? Because Gamespot's review was the complete opposite, and I know they completed the game. It's the latter part of the game that gets way more grindy.

And I agree with everything @Rudy_Manchego has said. I don't think you're part of the problem if you buy the game but don't buy any MTs. I'm just worried that it'll get even worse, and it probably will. 20 years ago this was unthinkable, loot boxes in a single player game, heck, it was unthinkable five years ago. And you know, when I see all those special and deluxe editions, the pre-order stuff, the day-one DLC, the MTs, I just lose any interest. I don't even know where to start with these games and what to buy, and I'm certainly not going to pay several hundred bucks to get the ''complete'' experience. I want to love these games, I've been wanting a single player Star Wars game since forever, but all of this just kills my hype immediately. And I'm just worried what will become the norm five years from now, or ten. I don't even want to think about it...

@Tulio517 I miss the simple days when the game was finished when i payed for and wow the patches where not needed. 😀 😁

@Flaming_Kaiser In those simple days Overwatch wouldn't have half the content it has and interest in the game would slowly die until a cash grab sequel would be released to revive the game. But yeah, I get the point. We have cash grab sequels AND microtansactions in the same game nowadays lol

@Octane haven't reached the end of the game, but is it really that bad?

@AFCC According to the people who've played it, yes. I listened to a podcast the other day, and even though the guy who reviewed the Shadow of War loves grinding in games to death, even he said Shadow of War got repetitive. And here's the thing, if there wasn't an incentive to buy MTs, they wouldn't be in the game in the first place.

@Octane I don't feel like MT should be like that...microtransactions should be for busy people that like to experience everything but have no time for grinding...see what I mean? Extending the grind of a game TO INCENTIVE people to buy them is just wrong

@AFCC If the game wasn't as grindy there wouldn't be a need for MTs in the first place, and the game would be shorter too. And personally I think that if you're that busy, you shouldn't be playing games at all. Buying your way through a game sounds wrong, the gameplay should be fun, that's what it should be all about. If you're willing to pay to see the end credits, why are you even playing the game? Heck, play it on easy mode if that's what you want, but I don't think I agree with the notion that MTs have a place in (single player) games at all.

I have been increasingly frustrated with Micro-transactions in games. I have been burned by so called free to play games that REQUIRE you to spend money on a Free to Play game or you can no longer advance in the game. This is also an issue with some Free to Play games where they release content that if purchased gives people an overwhelming advantage for individuals who spend money on the game. I have also been burned trying to get content to advance in a game only to get the common drops that do not give you the opportunity to advance without trying again by buying again... If you advertise a Free to Play game there should be opportunity to advance in the game and not be required to purchase content to play and because of these experiences I have stopped playing many games and no long will give ANY favorable ratings to games that strongly support Micro-Transactions.

@Octane I'm not saying buy the ending...I'm saying that maybe speed things up...I wouldn't do it but an option to do so is harmless to me I guess...

@AFCC Yes, it would be in theory, but like I said, they made the game more tedious on purpose. You have to grind a lot to get to the ending. So while you can opt to not spend anything on MTs, it still affects the game, and the end product is an objectively more tedious and/or boring experience if you don't buy the MTs.

That's the frustrating part, it's technically optional, but they've adjusted the game in such a way that there will be an incentive for you to buy them.