28 minutes ago, Zido_Z said:

But due to the increase in profits from 600 mill to 1.7 bil, that definitely shows more than 4% in some matter or another. I will give you that we don't know how much it currently is, but if there's 100 million players active in League, a good chunk of them are spending some amount of money.

See, that's the thing, it doesn't "definitely show" any such thing. Let's just say for the sale of argument however that LoL has made an amazing improvement in conversion to be more consistent with the rest of the industry at 10-15%. That's still the overwhelming majority of players not paying.

Putting LoL aside though, as mentioned above, we know that 10-15% conversion is generally considered a good rate industry wide. We know that 20% would be considered to be exceptional - the most successful games usually have poorer conversation rate than this. These are not big percentages. Very few people would consider these small numbers of the total player base to represent "a good chunk". Going back to how we got on to statistics in the first place, it seems pretty fair to say that these numbers say "most people don't"; that's the statement you were claiming these statistics show is a lie.

We know it's extremely profitable. That doesn't mean "most people" care.

//EDIT: This is all getting rather circular though, I'm probably going to bow out unless there's anything new to respond to.

7 hours ago, jbadams said:

This is all getting rather circular though, I'm probably going to bow out unless there's anything new to respond to.

I agree. I am very happy with all of the responses though. It is good to see that some people share my viewpoints, and the idea of cosmetic microtransactions affecting gameplay is not lost on me. Thanks for all of your responses!

7 hours ago, jbadams said:

See, that's the thing, it doesn't "definitely show" any such thing. Let's just say for the sale of argument however that LoL has made an amazing improvement in conversion to be more consistent with the rest of the industry at 10-15%. That's still the overwhelming majority of players not paying.

Putting LoL aside though, as mentioned above, we know that 10-15% conversion is generally considered a good rate industry wide. We know that 20% would be considered to be exceptional - the most successful games usually have poorer conversation rate than this. These are not big percentages. Very few people would consider these small numbers of the total player base to represent "a good chunk". Going back to how we got on to statistics in the first place, it seems pretty fair to say that these numbers say "most people don't"; that's the statement you were claiming these statistics show is a lie.

We know it's extremely profitable. That doesn't mean "most people" care.

//EDIT: This is all getting rather circular though, I'm probably going to bow out unless there's anything new to respond to.

Then we're taking most differently. You can have the whole percentage argument, but my side was always that a lot of people value cosmetics just as much as gameplay, if not more. Even the characters you pick are psychologically affected by choosing what looks better to you. The next point of that would be investment of time, which freemium games use as another resource to collect optional currency that can buy the same things, albeit at a slower rate.

I likely won't convince you of the argument that most people do care about cosmetics, but the history of video games and the multibillion dollar industry of real life cosmetics (clothing, makeup) hold a pretty good pillar on the importance of looking good to yourself and others.

You're free to not continue the discussion, however, as it seems you've somewhat settled on that.

13 minutes ago, Zido_Z said:

a lot of people value cosmetics just as much as gameplay, if not more.

13 minutes ago, Zido_Z said:

the argument that most people do care about cosmetics

I think the sticking point is that "a lot of people" is not "most people". Hodgman made a statement about "most people" and you claimed that the statistics showed it was a lie. The fact that a lot of people like them was never the question for anyone else, we all know that. Don't confuse "a lot of people" with "most people". 10-15% is not "most".

13 minutes ago, Zido_Z said:

Even the characters you pick are psychologically affected by choosing what looks better to you.

Absolutely, a game's visuals, character design, etc. are hugely important. We're talking specifically about cosmetic microtransactions though, so the other visuals aren't relevant. The game's visuals can be matter to a player without them caring about optional purchasable cosmetics. It's hard to have a discussion microtransactions whilst also muddying the water with points about other visuals. 

A relevant post from Raph Koster: "some current game economics".

20 hours ago, jbadams said:

 

I think the sticking point is that "a lot of people" is not "most people". Hodgman made a statement about "most people" and you claimed that the statistics showed it was a lie. The fact that a lot of people like them was never the question for anyone else, we all know that. Don't confuse "a lot of people" with "most people". 10-15% is not "most".

Absolutely, a game's visuals, character design, etc. are hugely important. We're talking specifically about cosmetic microtransactions though, so the other visuals aren't relevant. The game's visuals can be matter to a player without them caring about optional purchasable cosmetics. It's hard to have a discussion microtransactions whilst also muddying the water with points about other visuals. 

And games sell game visuals and character designs as cosmetic transactions. I believe we encountered another instance that should be elaborated on as far as microtransactions go. Microtransactions can also be a combination of gameplay + cosmetic design. For instance, in Street Fighter, they currently have a freemium design where they sell fighters. People buying characters have two factors in their purchase: their functional power (playstyle), and their design. Competitive players lean more toward the former. Everyone else lean toward the latter. Between them, there's obviously crossover of intentions with someone picking cause they like the character's personality/ design (cosmetics), and a casual person choosing a character cause they like their playstyle (functional).

That's why I believe cosmetic transactions are equal to mechanic microtransactions, if not more. Cosmetics influence most of our video game decisions. You see visuals as separate from cosmetics (which we take it is optional visuals). I can understand that, but then that becomes subjective because each game can scale up and down said base visuals and make base visuals into cosmetics, which is one of the business models of current microtransaction heavy games (and one of my biggest pet peeves).

Micro-Transactions........................................ Was created to milk every penny you can from a customers, I never used microtransactions, but if youre game fully playable without them, than I see why not

On 11/30/2017 at 7:23 AM, zizulot said:

Micro-Transactions........................................ Was created to milk every penny you can from a customers

I don't fully agree with this. I have tried not including micro transactions in my game and can tell you it led only to failure for me.

I feel that as long as paying for something in game remains a player choice and does not hinder the progress of the game, it's a valid way for players to spend money on the game.

16 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

I don't fully agree with this. I have tried not including micro transactions in my game and can tell you it led only to failure for me.

I feel that as long as paying for something in game remains a player choice and does not hinder the progress of the game, it's a valid way for players to spend money on the game.

I disagree, Im not old, but Im old school, you make game or app fully playable and selling it than why you need MT? I agree in some cases when game is free to play and has no adverts in it something like COC or some MMORPG games, 

On 1.12.2017 at 11:21 PM, Scouting Ninja said:

I don't fully agree with this. I have tried not including micro transactions in my game and can tell you it led only to failure for me.

I feel that as long as paying for something in game remains a player choice and does not hinder the progress of the game, it's a valid way for players to spend money on the game.

Interesting... why do you say it led to failure?

Do you mean financial failure? Was it a premium game? Did the fact it cost something upfront led to lower downloads?

That would mean not going F2P led to failure, NOT microtransactions itself. I think microtransactions in F2P games itself are fine, even though they still can be harmful towards the weak minded, people with gambling addictions or minors. But nobody REALLY complains about mobile games or other F2P titles implementing microtransactions (of course, I cannot speak for everybody, or the poster you quoted)...

The current controversy revolves around microtransactions in premium games. Which CAN be done in a non-intrusive way that DO give players that want to spend extra money options without interfering with the play expierience of everybody else (which is NOT what EA has done in BF2 as far as I understand it).

On 30.11.2017 at 6:23 AM, zizulot said:

Micro-Transactions........................................ Was created to milk every penny you can from a customers, I never used microtransactions, but if youre game fully playable without them, than I see why not

While certainly true that SOME types of microtransactions have been created to be a predatory as possible, and some companies, especially in the mobile space, seem to take their data collection mania to creepy levels, in essence stalking their whale prey on social media to get more information on how to squeeze the last penny out of them, I would dare to say this is a little overgeneralizing.

I have seen the good kind of microtransactions. I have spent quite something on it myself actually in F2P games I liked. Because I wanted to support the dev and the game, AND because I got something in exchange which was worth my money without screwing up my or anyone elses play expierience.

I feel like the premium vehicles in the Wargaming titles are (mostly) a good example. You get some unique vehicles, which offer a different play expierience, and a vanity item at the same time (given you cannot get access to these vehicles without spending money)... while at best not being overpowered at all (some recent additions are not as cut and dry there, but thanks to the game having a lot of skill needed to pull off about anything, an overpowered vehicle alone does not make for an automatic win).

Now, are these premium vehicles designed to get some money out of non-paying customers? Yes. Are they sometimes designed to "force" true collectors to buy them (by using historically relevant vehicles)? Yes.

But they do not affect the play expierience of other players in the best case (until a total newbie buys a high tier vehicle and trys to ruin a tier 8 game for everyone else by being total useless... even then, as long as its only one person, there are 10+ other persons left in the team to make up for his inexpierience).

They might be making some collectors and historical nuts grab grudgingly for their wallet because they HAVE to have the Tirpitz Battleship, or they need ALL the US Ships they can get in game... but they do not incite gambling addiction, as you get what you buy.

So I wouldn't say ALL microtransactions are bad. Only the ones that work only thanks to addictions being abused, and a game being made grindier to incentivise players to spend money are in my eyes. And Pay2Win schemes of course.