This started out as a series of indignant tweets but I needed some room to really spread out. Alright, let's do this.

Microtransactions are everywhere.

Every fuckin' game has them these days. There's "free to play" and "not free to play but you can pay for optional cosmetics and then we'll release DLC free" or in some cases even "not free to play and we'll charge you for everything, all cosmetics and DLC because fuck you, you're idiots and we know you'll pay for it" models. Can't move for 'em.

Seriously, we're knee deep right now.

For the most part, I'm OK with it. I'm lucky enough to have a chunk of disposable income that I'm happy to spend on cosmetic junk for games in which I intend to invest a relative amount of time. New hats? Sure, why not. They make my PUBG lady look cool while she jumps out the aeroplane. Who doesn't like hats?

Now I'm going to shelve that line of thought and jump back ten years to World Of Warcraft. Those were the days, huh? When you spent hours and days grinding out the gear you'd need to complete your raid at the end of the week? And then when you successfully completed that raid and you got a cool new mount or helmet or... whatever it is Priests have. Staves? Sure. The point is that you earned it and you got to walk around with it and people would throw you jealous/admiring glances as you strutted through Orgrimmar. I assume they were admiring glances.. it's hard to tell. The models were pretty low-poly back in the day.

Anyway the point was that there was a sense of pride associated with the gear you owned. Every piece came with a story. This helmet came from the Firelands! These boots came from Ulduar! They were a physical manifestation of your achievements, and they weren't just cosmetic, there was a sentimentality attached to each piece. They gave your character character.

Fast forward back to Now

This helmet? I got it in a loot crate. I had to buy 16 of them to get it.

This isn't a rant about spending money because, as has already been proved multiple times, I will willingly and enthusiastically spend moneys on stupid virtual cosmetics without complaint. This is an issue of game design principles, and giving players an emotional attachment to your game that is dependent on an investment other than money. By making everything in a game available for purchase through external currency you undermine any sense of pride a player might have from earning it ingame. A system in which you can simply buy the same content that is otherwise earned trivialises the achievement of the player who invested the time to get it. So why should they bother? I think this is why so many online communities attempting to promote the loot crate model have so much difficulty retaining their fanbase; without that emotional attachment, loyalty will only last so long. Where's the pride in just being able to throw money at a game until you get what you want?

Why should anyone give a fuck that you've got a cool hat if they know you didn't even need to kill anything in order to get it?

Ultimately it seems in the best interests of publishers to lock the best content behind ingame achievement. Part of me suspects this is why Destiny was so wildly successful despite being so bloated. Sure, have microtransactions, but don't only have microtransactions. Maybe don't overcharge for redundant DLC packs either (Destiny i'm still looking at you, you bastard) but there's a balance in there which rewards everyone and keeps people coming back for more.

That's why the real indicator of commitment in Hearthstone is in the golden hero powers, not the cards you own, or that one time you made legend with a dumb pirate warrior deck.

Right. Good. Glad we all agree.

Thanks for reading,

Love Sweep

Why should anyone give a fuck that you've got a cool hat if they know you didn't even need to kill anything in order to get it?

Not exclusive to videogames tbh

I really hope games get a handle on micro-transactions because they're clearly meant to fund games in ways DLC never could.

It's been really interesting watching games transition hard from the older DLC model (new stories, new maps, etc) and shift towards cosmetic items with DLC featuring more diverse packs of add-ons.

I'd have no problem paying more for a game knowing it isn't trying to bait me into spending 5 bucks every few days. With how loot boxes work in some games I honestly think they'll get some kind of gambling style regulation. I wonder how much that runs off on little kids too. Gambling addiction is pretty hard for an adult to break, can't imagine it's good for younger gamers.

I like collecting things, and the source of how I obtained them doesn't matter as much as the thing I'm collecting. I've collected many different types of cards, all of which I obtained through money or gifts, and that doesn't change the fact that I enjoy 1) the thrill of random pack opening, but mostly 2) neatly categorizing my collection. Things I collect, in or outside of games, are for me to enjoy, not for other people.

Regardless, thanks for solving the mystery of "pauldrons".

@finaldasa: My problem with modern microtransactions is two-fold, firstly when they include them in games that were already $60 and secondly, when they fuck up the game's progression systems by selling them.

Case and point: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. See also, any game that lets you buy crafting mats or other such time savers with real money. The drop rates are so ridiculous you can't help but suspect they were tuned to force you into the microtransactions.

An honorable mention goes to forcing multiplayer into traditionally story-focused single-player games just to justify a lootbox microtransaction-gambling system. Games like Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda. There's an old report that quotes an EA exec as proud to admit that they've not greenlit any project that didn't have an online multiplayer component.

There's also the horror show that is GTA: Online. It'd be different if these microtransaction systems were allowing developers to make more, better, or cheaper story DLC, but instead they're not making story or single-player addons at all anymore and just funneling the profits to their tax havens. /end rant

@freedom4556: In a lot of cases micro-transactions are paying for games, especially multiplayer focused titles, to keep running. Overwatch uses their revenue to pay for more art, maps, animators, characters, and so on. So in GTA or Mass Effect those systems were ideally using those purchases to fund the upkeep on servers and new content.

Also DLC and now micro-transactions will keep the entry price at $60 and charge you deferred prices later down the line.

For me, as long as they remain optional and don't make that actual earning of whatever object or item they're peddling impossible then I'm fine with it. It ideally should be time versus money and which you're more willing to give up.

But we can all agree time savers and countdowns should stay in mobile games and clickers.

That's fair enough. I guess it comes down to how you quantify value. Some people measure their success by how much money they have. Personally the challenge that videogames present - and the prize that comes with it - holds a higher value to me than simply having a full collection.

Kinda kicking in open doors here.

Well then someone should tell almost every developer because apparently they didn't get the memo.

They didn't get the memo, but their business department got the invoice that stated: "Hey, we made a bunch of money off of people who paid for this inane shit that cost us very little to produce"

Like many people I like to collect (rare) mounts in MMOs. Star Wars: The Old Republic basically moved everything from the game (except maybe the rarest ones you only see with hardcore guilds) to loot crates. I ditched this game.

I've pretty much lost interest in triple-A games these days and this is a large part of the reason. The notion of games as a service repulses me. Thankfully, there are still a large number of indie and even some bigger studio developers making games that are self-contained stories with beginnings, middles and endings and don't rely on online or microtransactions. Nier: Automata came out this year and doesn't rely on any of that bullshit (shoddy DLC that I didn't buy notwithstanding.)

I am fine with microtransactions as long as they are optional and i can earn things by playing the game. I have more of an issue with DLC than microtransactions honestly, like at least give me the full game i just paid 60bux for. I don't mind grinding a bit to get this cool hat somebody else paid 5 bux for to get it earlier, as long as it doesn't give them some sorta advantage in a multiplayer game, that is lame.

Except where they aren't, and that's my big issue. Both GTA V and Andromeda have had their post-launch content scrapped. I understand the need to fund server upkeep on PC, but on the consoles (with their paid online) these practices are just pure profit margin.

I feel like you're missing the point of this blog. I'm not saying "microtransactions are bad". I don't care about microtransactions conceptually. I care about them detracting from gameplay as oppose to enhancing it, which I believe is possible.

I couldn't name a single game where microtransactions are beneficial to the design of the game itself. Even in something like Overwatch where people give it a pass for being cosmetic, the overall gameplay loop very purposefully includes those loot boxes. The contents are carefully metered out so that even your reward can be a disappointment, or worthless, and it's all for the sake of selling people on buying into the scheme, as opposed to creating a good, rewarding gameplay experience. Obviously they still have that in the game itself-- it's not an egregious example of misusing microtransactions.

For an actual egregious example, in the Tales Of series, costumes used to be attached to completion. They were the visual rewards for doing all the completionist and high-skill stuff. Now they sell the costumes in sets for $15 with no way to get them in the game, and no more rewards for doing the crazy stuff. Persona 5, similarly, fell into this trend.

When the microtransactions are entirely cosmetic, and they allow me to receive new content I care about for free (like the Overwatch example), I'm generally willing to give them a pass. But I still never participate in it, because I feel zero accomplishment or satisfaction in showing off something I bought like that. And I'm never impressed by what other people have. I want to pay for a game once, pay for DLC or expansion packs, and have everything available through grinding, luck, or hard work.

The only "games as a service" concept I'm comfortable with is the old-fashioned MMO model with a subscription service and no free-to-play options (except being able to buy subscription tokens with in-game currency if you have enough), and there's barely any of those left. Just WoW and FFXIV I think, and neither of them are entirely "pure" anymore either. Although with FFXIV at least, there are very few items in the cash shop, and everyone knows what they are; not sure about WoW.

This is why I think the content you get in loot boxes should be independent from the content you get for actually playing the game. If you want to cut corners and pay for things then fine, but there should also be a level of rewarding cosmetics that can only be earned through a skill and time investment.

In terms of being beneficial to the design of the game itself I agree, there's not much to merit the loot-crate system, though for people who want more out of a game and are willing to pay for it, having the option is always nice.

Ideally there should be a system in which you could earn ingame loot crates at a decent rate, but the chance of getting rare loot is rare. As an alternative you can skip the process by buying it. But there's also content which is exclusive to both loot crates, and the game itself. This is what I mean about a balanced system where everyone benefits; People who are willing to invest more money would get some items faster, but not all. Those who don't want to pay for extras get the exclusivity which isn't trivialised by people cutting corners and simply buying the item. And there's there's an amount of overlap in the middle where the majority of the items are available for both ends for the spectrum to enjoy.

As oppose to the current model most games employ which is "you use real or ingame currency to get the same thing and there's probably nothing in there" which leaves everyone feeling underwhelmed.

I'm still OK with entirely cosmetic microtransactions in paid multiplayer games if it means I get free map packs and updates and such - stuff that I, personally, actually care about. But then I don't play many multiplayer games. If I played MMO's, I would prefer the old-fashioned subscription fee model over people running around in equipment they just paid for in a game they just bought and have only played for two hours.

Keep them out of my single player games, period. If you want to earn more money from me after you've sold me a game, then make some meaningful content. A side campaign in a shooter or a new area to explore in an open world game. "Meaningful content" does not mean "costumes", either, costumes should be rewards for in-game achievements.

"I'm ok with it as long as it is optional." Only it is never optional. I cannot get a version of Overwatch (eg.) that does not have microtransactions. And then you'll say "oh, but it doesn't affect the gameplay." But it does because the incentive is on the developer to make the parts of the game with micro$ more time consuming/tedious so people will pay for it. The incentive is not making it fun. I want ALL the incentive to be on making the game fun. Generally if a game has a strong micro$ component I will not buy it. We do not need a gambling roulette wheel in every damned game!

I feel like Guild Wars 2 has done it pretty well, though I haven't checked in lately (currently updating it and there's a lot to update). Loads of cosmetic stuff you can't get normally, and then a handful of various boosters that aren't really needed. Toys that serve no purpose other than being amusing (yes I've bought a few). The one thing I didn't like was the character / bag / bank slots being tied to the Gem currency, as quickly after launch the gold > gem exchange rate exploded and never went down.

That being said, I've still sunk at least like $300 into it and am probably going to spend a bit more as this new expansion gets ready to drop. I also have a thousand hours put into that game and once of each class at max, so I don't have any regrets.

Microtransaction undermine gameplay. They suck. Most of the cosmetic ones too.

I don't think microtransactions are ever going away sadly. They just make too much money

Unless something comes along that's even more lucrative than they are, then they might.

I'd maybe agree with this, but I have a hard time seeing how it affects the gameplay in Overwatch. It's not like it affects the balance of matches or match length.

TBF you could make the exact same argument that you made about microtransactions creating padding about unlockables as well (i.e. games are padded out with filler sidequests and unlockables to keeping you playing longer than you should), so not really sure what's so odious about loot boxes in comparison.

Several years ago I was playing one of the latter Skate games, might have been the third one. Either way, I recall buying that time saver thing that unlocked everything you got through career mode. I have amusingly since then been thinking about how I was part of the problem with the current microtransactions trend. But the issue for me is that it was also about that time when I dropped all pretenses of caring about 'achievement' in video games. I don't go to them to prove anything either for me or someone else. I like customization, which was my main urge to buy that time saver thing (and also because I didn't want to bother with the career, I just wanted to skate around in my outfit of choice, however stupid that sounds). Beating Bloodbourne is the closest thing I have come to experiencing the sensation of achievement in later years, because it was actually a challenge I accepted. But that game also urge you to it by it's own design.

While I can certainly agree that games where you see someone sporting something that takes effort to get is interesting, it was never something that really motivated me. I recall thinking people with flashy gun skins in older CoDs probably were pretty dedicated but at the end of the day I would rather just be given the option to customize those guns however I wished because the appeal is the game, not arbitrary 'hats'. And that is true across most games I play, which is probably why I'll never be motivated by superficial rewards to achievements if the game itself isn't urging me to challenge myself.

Which is a longwinded way of saying I am not really bothered by microtransactions. I mean, at times I do feel like they are a little overpriced for the content you get. Just looking at the pricing structure of the things in something like Ghost Recon: Wildlands is crazy. Buying 'credits' to buy outfits and guns, but the pricing is so weird that you need to buy the game twice over to get everything that at some point it just becomes ridiculous. But at the same time, you're not going to be able to get that stuff in game at all so at least you're buying something you can't get otherwise.

An interesting point, but aren't you comparing oranges to apples? RPG gear isn't the same as cosmetic items. In WoW case wouldn't it be more apt to compare earned gear bought from an auction house? I don't play WoW to know if all gear is sellable so correct me if I'm wrong.

Nah, the best stuff was bound to your character. Although I haven't touched wow in years, so maybe that's changed now?

Were you watching Jeff when Overwatch came out. At one point he seemed kind of interested in it. Then he bought 100 loot boxes and lost much interest in the game because the win-loot aspect was gone for him. Are loot boxes part of the game or not? If not, then my case is that the game is made inferior by putting non-game clutter in it. If so, then my previous argument holds.

Jeff doesn't like basically any game that requires teamwork, especially FPS games as he likes to lone wolf, also E3 happened basically right after Overwatch came out. So there's other reasons he lost interest. In fact what I take away from what you said was that the loot boxes might be the only reason he liked the game at all. Without them it might have been a hard pass for him.

Again how exactly do loot boxes make Overwatch inferior? Your assertion earlier is that devs make the game longer and more tedious to make people pay for the boxes. That's certainly true for many f2p games like Clash Royale or its ilk. How is Overwatch doing that? There's nothing about map design, gameplay or match balance that seems to me to be in any impacted. You can play whenever, however you want without restriction. As you level up you do need to play more often and/or with friends to increase your loot box drop rate if your care about cosmetic drop rate. However The only incentives I see tied to the loot boxes are generally positive ones (encourage people to play with friends or try new modes). None of that says to me they designed the game in such a way that makes it more tedious or less fun. It's a positive for me as a player if loot boxes help encourage a large more active playerbase in a variety of modes.

Look don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about Loot Boxes either and many games are abusive about that kinda stuff. Would I prefer if the game just let me earn the skins however I wanted to? Sure. But compared to other microtransaction systems out there, Overwatch seems pretty inoffensive to me.

This is all horse armour's fault.

I am with you all the way though. Shadow of War looks like a great game wrapped up in some poisonous mess.

We can only comment on the information we have, and what we have is the assertion that once the loot boxes had been purchased the motivation to continue playing was abated. Obviously there will be other pros and cons that will also have influenced that decision, but the most prominent seems to be the lack of drive to continue playing once enough loot boxes had been purchased.

One could argue that the same motivation would disappear had the items been unlocked without loot crates - I guess in the same way that once people have unlocked all the achievements for a game they consider it "done" - regardless of how they gained those achievements. My assertion here is that to do so through skill/time is more meaningful and rewarding than simply sinking money into micro-transactions.

I guess. I feel fairly confident that what I said was something you reasonably infer about his tastes/habits after watching/listening to thousands of hours of his opinions and content like I'm sure we both have. But yeah I don't recall if he specifically said so in this case or not. Doesn't really matter either way, his dislike is just one person's opinion. One very influential critic's opinion and whose opinion a lot of us here hold in high regard, but just one opinion.

I would argue that motivation would disappear once the good are acquired whatever the means of acquisition. I know for me personally once I unlock all the characters in Smash Bros, I usually stop playing it. I just put down Spec Ops: the Line the other night because I got all the achievements I felt like getting.

I feel like you and @memu are arguing something different here

Your assertion that the presence of microtransactions devalues the meaning of achievement/collectibles in games. Can't really argue that. That's a personal taste thing. I personally feel the same way as you do (one reason I never bother too much with the DOTA 2 battlepass since you can just buy levels), but I've also got a lot of buddies for whom time is a precious commodity due to having families than money and I don't begrudge them just buying what they want. That's their prerogative.

The part I do find concerning about your argument is the part where you valued achievement so you could show off to others. The gaming community has enough problem with people judging each other, I personally find it a positive to have an easy avenue to do that removed. Last thing we need is to give people more justification to assert their dominance over other players.

Memu otoh I interpreted as saying that the presence of loot boxes negatively affect Overwatch game design by the insertion of artificial grinding. Now that I don't agree with. I have played many games where that issue is definitely present (like Clash Royale) but I have yet to see any convincing argument put forward that explicitly lays out how that pertains to Overwatch. The match length isn't padded in any way, heroes aren't locked behind the loot boxes, gameplay and balance is unaffected as best as I can tell.

Would I prefer it if Overwatch had a Krypt ala Mortal Kombat where you could just unlock what you wanted? Absolutely. But I don't think the loot box system actually harms the gameplay in any that I've seen.

Imho microtransactions are not inherently good nor bad. Like any monetization scheme it's all about the implementation. It's not like the Arcade days or the days where 60 bucks just got you the whole game didn't have their own foibles related to how they got paid.

tbh I don't know that I see much added value in 'I spent weeks trying to get these rad shoes!' over 'Oh these shoes are rad so I bought them'.