Micro-transactions are likely the future of monetizing games, especially ones with online communities. The F2P model allows for a larger player-base while still providing revenue for the developer. One way to look at it is this: providing those that can afford to support the game financially with a way to do so and those that can't with a way to contribute to the community. Just because a player doesn't pay to play the game doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the health of the community, either with valuable feedback, telling their friends about the game, providing community resources, or creating, leading, and joining in-game organizations.

The biggest problem with the F2P model and micro-transactions in general is when companies lose sight of what their primary focus should be: making an engaging experience. As said before, when a company starts focusing more on the bottom line and their financials rather than on creating a good game, it usually ends badly for them. It's not because game companies shouldn't be looking to make a profit, far from it, it's because the way they make that profit is practically a side effect from making a good game and establishing a good community around it. To illustrate my point, look at EA with lootboxes in Battlefront 2 or Bethesda with their mod marketplace or Trion with gameplay advantages sold in ArcheAge's cash shop. These were incredibly unpopular moves and severely damaged the reputation of the companies involved, despite intentions that could easily be interpreted as benevolent.

On the other hand, look at CD Projekt Red with their move to release either completely free DLCs or expansions with enormous amounts of content for The Witcher 3. Or, Blizzard's Overwatch with loot boxes done right. I'm sure their fans appreciate that kind of move and I'm equally sure that both companies will make a significant profit on their next title, no matter what it is. EA and DICE, on the other hand, cannot say the same of their next title. Basically, good business practices isn't just about making as much money as possible in the short term, it also includes things like customer retention, brand loyalty, community management, and public relations.

4 minutes ago, cjmarsh said:

Micro-transactions are likely the future of monetizing games, especially ones with online communities. The F2P model allows for a larger player-base while still providing revenue for the developer. One way to look at it is this: providing those that can afford to support the game financially with a way to do so and those that can't with a way to contribute to the community. Just because a player doesn't pay to play the game doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the health of the community, either with valuable feedback, telling their friends about the game, providing community resources, or creating, leading, and joining in-game organizations.

The biggest problem with the F2P model and micro-transactions in general is when companies lose sight of what their primary focus should be: making an engaging experience. As said before, when a company starts focusing more on the bottom line and their financials rather than on creating a good game, it usually ends badly for them. It's not because game companies shouldn't be looking to make a profit, far from it, it's because the way they make that profit is practically a side effect from making a good game and establishing a good community around it. To illustrate my point, look at EA with lootboxes in Battlefront 2 or Bethesda with their mod marketplace or Trion with gameplay advantages sold in ArcheAge's cash shop. These were incredibly unpopular moves and severely damaged the reputation of the companies involved, despite intentions that could easily be interpreted as benevolent.

On the other hand, look at CD Projekt Red with their move to release either completely free DLCs or expansions with enormous amounts of content for The Witcher 3. Or, Blizzard's Overwatch with loot boxes done right. I'm sure their fans appreciate that kind of move and I'm equally sure that both companies will make a significant profit on their next title, no matter what it is. EA and DICE, on the other hand, cannot say the same of their next title. Basically, good business practices isn't just about making as much money as possible in the short term, it also includes things like customer retention, brand loyalty, community management, and public relations.

Still , when AAA titles doing microtransactions its bullshit, most of them make money from sales, DLC in other hand sometimes good(Undead Nightmares), sometimes bad(Famous Horse Armor)

12 minutes ago, zizulot said:

Still , when AAA titles doing microtransactions its bullshit, most of them make money from sales, DLC in other hand sometimes good(Undead Nightmares), sometimes bad(Famous Horse Armor)

It seems as though you don't like AAA developers charging for both the retail price of the game and also charging for items in a cash shop. What I don't understand is, why? If those items in the cash shop don't change the competitive advantage of players in any way and only provide cosmetic content, what is the issue if people want to buy them?

2 hours ago, cjmarsh said:

Micro-transactions are likely the future of monetizing games, especially ones with online communities. The F2P model allows for a larger player-base while still providing revenue for the developer. One way to look at it is this: providing those that can afford to support the game financially with a way to do so and those that can't with a way to contribute to the community. Just because a player doesn't pay to play the game doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the health of the community, either with valuable feedback, telling their friends about the game, providing community resources, or creating, leading, and joining in-game organizations.

The biggest problem with the F2P model and micro-transactions in general is when companies lose sight of what their primary focus should be: making an engaging experience. As said before, when a company starts focusing more on the bottom line and their financials rather than on creating a good game, it usually ends badly for them. It's not because game companies shouldn't be looking to make a profit, far from it, it's because the way they make that profit is practically a side effect from making a good game and establishing a good community around it. To illustrate my point, look at EA with lootboxes in Battlefront 2 or Bethesda with their mod marketplace or Trion with gameplay advantages sold in ArcheAge's cash shop. These were incredibly unpopular moves and severely damaged the reputation of the companies involved, despite intentions that could easily be interpreted as benevolent.

On the other hand, look at CD Projekt Red with their move to release either completely free DLCs or expansions with enormous amounts of content for The Witcher 3. Or, Blizzard's Overwatch with loot boxes done right. I'm sure their fans appreciate that kind of move and I'm equally sure that both companies will make a significant profit on their next title, no matter what it is. EA and DICE, on the other hand, cannot say the same of their next title. Basically, good business practices isn't just about making as much money as possible in the short term, it also includes things like customer retention, brand loyalty, community management, and public relations.

I couldn't agree more... well said.

2 hours ago, zizulot said:

Still , when AAA titles doing microtransactions its bullshit, most of them make money from sales, DLC in other hand sometimes good(Undead Nightmares), sometimes bad(Famous Horse Armor)

Well.... again, I wouldn't generalize like that. An AAA game using microtransactions to give you ADDITIONAL content you can selectively buy is a good thing to me... you know, a Fighting game with an already choke full selection of fighters cramming in some additional classical characters from older games, charging a fair price per additional character (lets say 2-3$ per character) is cool for me.

You could say that they could have produced a full expansion pack / DLC pack out of it for 10-15 bucks, giving you more bang for the bucks. Sure, there are limit to what I am ready to pay for such small additions to a game, I would never pay 5$ or more just for an additional character... unless its that one character that I want in every installment (and then expect me to bitch and moan online about that character not making the cut for the normal fighter roster... yeah, I can be quite whiny about little things like that ).

There still are cases where microtransactions make sense for an AAA game. Tastes differ here, for me the line is where ADDITIONAL content gets put in as microtransaction for FAIR prices. Cut out stuff that should be part of the normal game, or overcharge me, and I will no longer think its a good thing (and certainly not pay for the microtransaction, maybe even not buy the game)

3 hours ago, zizulot said:

Still , when AAA titles doing microtransactions its bullshit, most of them make money from sales, DLC in other hand sometimes good(Undead Nightmares), sometimes bad(Famous Horse Armor)

OK but then consider how many of those DLC's get bought by the players? The truth is that players will always look to get the game for as little as they can. The amount of games and DLC's we buy have dropped by a lot.

The problem for AAA developer's isn't that they aren't making profit, the problem is that they need to make a large enough profit so they can make a other AAA game so everyone on the teams can keep there jobs.

That is why so many AAA developers are fading away, not because they aren't making money, they just don't make enough to go again.

The game market is changing now, it will adapt or die. We could be looking at the death of AAA and the rise of Indie into AAA.

I don't think Hellblade's approach is working either. It took them way too long to break even and that was using the large support they have. The support would dwindle over time and they will be in the same boat as the AAA developers, just with a smaller budget.

The old model for paying upfront is not working, players don't like the risk and spend too little on DLCs and other content. So what other options is there?

That is the question, isn't it? Is there EVER a proper time for microtransactions? I'll admit, I've spend $40 in the past on microtransactions in the game Fire Emblem Heroes, but there was a specific reason for that, and it paid off, so I didn't feel bad.

But, a lot of other people aren't so lucky, they try and spend a lot of money just to get a "leg up" on the competition, and it doesn't work like that. 

My thoughts are this, if you can find a way to input Microtransactions into the game while making sure that the game itself is not "hindered" because of it, I say you can try it. Just make sure the prices aren't too high!

I did spend some money on micro transactions before, but as I sayed, Im old-School, I like to get product already fully done, for example I pay full price for New game, Im exited AF, but wait... There is a CAP limit!!!! I need to buy DLCs to expand my CAP limit, Its complete money ripping scheme nowadays, and as I sayed before , If game is Free to play and doesnt have in game adds than Im up to it, sometimes just to help developer