Pay your thoughts, please.
Pay your thoughts, please.
This video features Jim Sterling discussing video game companies and their practices in today’s gaming scene. He reviews indie titles and gameplay content, often highlighting how developers incorporate micro-transactions into expensive games. He believes it’s unfair when players are pressured to buy resources just to progress, especially in a 60-dollar title. He contrasts the reality of purchasing resources naturally in games like Dead Space 3 with EA’s claims about resource availability. While he acknowledges the issue exists, he sees value in using in-game tools and free resources to overcome challenges. He questions the necessity of micro-transactions unless they’re limited to optional cosmetic items or free content. His perspective reflects a broader debate on fair monetization in gaming.
I invest more than sixty dollars in a game, so it should include everything.
Micro-transactions work as long as they don’t ruin the overall experience. For instance, allowing real money purchases for in-game currency is fine, even if developers haven’t slowed down monetization too much—like with Turn10’s Forza Motorsport 4/5 Forza Horizon/2. There’s still extra car-based DLC, but selling car tokens doesn’t detract from the gameplay. I don’t like adding content through DLC; creators should release games when complete rather than constantly expanding for profit.
I agree with Sterling. 60 bucks are already a lot of money for a videogame, especially if it's digitally distributed (the profit margin quite literally doubles if not more over a physical copy). The problem with the way dead space 3 does it is that while you can still access the stuff in the game, you'll never know if they were made scarcer than was necessary (or good) in an attempt to get you to pay. Overall it's unnecessarily greedy and bad practice. But there are worse things; one of the big reasons I didn't buy bf4 was the premium day one season pass. To own the full game you needed to spend 110 bucks; ridiculous. And on top of that there were microtransactions for items iirc. All this at the expense of mod support; who'd buy overpriced map packs if you could just download as many maps as you pleased for free? That and it's continuous attempts to copy call of duty instead of bringing forward what made it good in its first installments completely turned me off.
It just doesn't feel right for me, even if micro transactions are completely optional. It ruins immersion, when you are trying your best to gather some currency, and whenever you open inventory there is a sign "Buy 2 hours worth of grinding only for 4,99$". This thing came from mobile market, and there are not a single good thing in mobile market.
Haha it's interesting how some people actually embrace things as they are, even when they're supportive or just staying quiet about it. This kind of behavior usually leads to issues that are hard to fix, especially since we don't have rare games anymore. Adding these factors means the company isn't really a friendly local—it's focused on making money. They can control what you get based on the content they sell, which is common in most MMO F2P markets. Sometimes they boost items, drop characters, or level up things, even if it means cutting corners. These features exist whether you admit it or not. We often earn rewards by completing tough modes to unlock secrets or special items, but then developers skip those parts and focus on monetization.
I don't appreciate them at all; it feels like my efforts are wasted when I can simply afford through it. Popular MMO's are now using micro transactions. Games like Runescape, which I once enjoyed, now make me dislike them because a lot of the content demands spending $60 on a chance to win. You can even purchase the in-game currency and pay the monthly fee. It's no longer possible to admire someone's progress and think, "Wow, you put in effort." It's just about checking if they bought it all. That's not what games are meant for. For games like CS:GO and LoL, while I don't really enjoy them myself, the skin system adds something extra—it doesn't change how the game plays, just a minor side feature. You can decide whether to engage or not.
I gave up on angry birds transformers because it took hours or even days to progress without paying for instant updates. I favor games like dirty bomb, where you can win for free—though they do offer paid options. Loadout cards are unpredictable even after payment. I’d rather get mercs faster and loadout cards, but I find it more enjoyable to earn them myself. I already have a nader proxy aura and don’t really need any more, since I use it only about 95% of the time. I usually get loadout cards in one to two days.
Many believe Totalbiscuit warned against companies manipulating gameplay with micro-transactions. Dead Space 3 seemed acceptable, but a full-priced title with mandatory purchases can feel like unnecessary hassle. Is the slow progression intentional to encourage spending, or is it just a design choice?