Poll: Why weapons should be sold as microtransactions/DLC.

[loc978]

In an FPS where the stats are simple and the only stat you can make better is what gun you're toting... I agree with the OP.
In most multiplayer online games where DLC equipment is used, however (as in MMORPGs), if a full set of bought equipment is 5% better than anything another player can grind for months to finally acquire... and the DLC is instant, no work required, that's just ridiculously unbalanced.

 

[Hagi]

How are additional slightly more powerful weapons content?

Your gameplay experience will stay exactly the same, but instead of spending 5 seconds killing something you now spend 3 seconds doing it?

You'll play exactly the same but instead of pulling the trigger 4 times you now pull it 3 times? I mean as soon as new options and tactics open up then the weapon is overpowered since it allows you to do things no normal weapon would ever be capable of.

Nothing inherently against stuff like weapon packs. But do call them what they are, quick cash for the developers and easy progression for those without much time. They are not additional content, therefore they are not even DLC (DownLoadable Content).

Weapon packs are a micro transaction, just like paid server transfers or paid mounts in MMOs. Be honest and call them what they are.

 

[Smooth Operator]

They are trying to nickle and dime you every step of the way and you say it's not enough yet?

Ofcourse they would take them out of the game to sell as extras, why the fuck would they give them for free?
Once they got you over the hump they wont be selling 4 CoD maps for $15, they will be selling 4 gun models for $15, so howmany thousands of dollars before you can buy the complete game?

 

[Tr3mbl3Tr3mbl3]

Watch Extra Credits's episode on micro-transactions, located on this very site. Rule #1 for micro-transactions: DON'T SELL POWER.

Oh, you could argue that the weapons they would be selling are completely balanced and in no way could affect the game-play; you're wrong. Any reasonable assortment of weapons available as a sale will have to have at least one that is innately more powerful than the others. Or possibly weaker, but that would defeat the purpose of buying it in the first place.

Why would you spend money on a weapon that isn't more powerful than the ones you already have for free? It's stupid, no matter the situation, micro-transactions and DLC should be for convenience, additional but non-essential content, and aesthetics or customization.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Would be too hard to balance, items you can buy should be purely for show and nothing else.

Skins for weapons, or at least colors for them...

I'm okay with that.

 

[Nunny]

Would be too hard to balance, items you can buy should be purely for show and nothing else.

Skins for weapons, or at least colors for them...

I'm okay with that.

That would be alright, as long as its not an entirely new weapon or gives a new feature to the gun.

 

[Randomeaninglessword]

The only DLCs I like are full-sized expansions. Anything else just seems like a waste of money.

 

[SNIPERFOX ft. Harry P.Ness]

Golden rule of a Microtransaction game;
NEVER SELL POWER.

 

[cgentero]

Watch Extra Credits's episode on micro-transactions, located on this very site. Rule #1 for micro-transactions: DON'T SELL POWER.

Oh, you could argue that the weapons they would be selling are completely balanced and in no way could affect the game-play; you're wrong. Any reasonable assortment of weapons available as a sale will have to have at least one that is innately more powerful than the others. Or possibly weaker, but that would defeat the purpose of buying it in the first place.

Why would you spend money on a weapon that isn't more powerful than the ones you already have for free? It's stupid, no matter the situation, micro-transactions and DLC should be for convenience, additional but non-essential content, and aesthetics or customization.

Ideally you are buying that weapon's uniqueness not its power, lets use Call Of Duty for example; lets say there are three initial machine guns, one with a higher damage output but a slower firing speed, one with a higher firing speed but slower reload speed, and an averaged one, but then they release a new one it has a faster reloading speed but a lower damage output. Keep this bearing in mind my post above about being able to attain such things by other means besides buying with money e.g. random drops or rewards points, If I wanted a machine gun with a fast reload but didn't want to grind reward points for it or leave it to chance with random drops and now I were to buy this new machine gun would it be buying power?

*you could argue that people would not be used to fighting people with machine guns with a faster reload and have a psuedo-advantage but it goes away once people get used to it*

 

[Sixcess]

The more things that are made available in DLC, be it weapons, outfit, vehicles, missions, whatever, the less there will be in the actual game, because why give someone something for free when you can charge them for it later?

(nor do I buy the "Oh we worked on this after the game went gold so that's why we didn't include it" excuse. Perhaps in some cases, but I'd be surprised if the majority of DLC for major games wasn't decided upon during the earliest stages of development.)

I'll give you an example. A couple of years ago City of Heroes, a subscription MMO, introduced what they called Booster Packs into their online store. These were made up primarily of new costume pieces. After the introduction of the booster packs there were virtually no new costume pieces included in any of the regular 'free' updates, and those that were given away were less elaborate, less useful and less interesting than the booster pack pieces.

That's an example of people who are already paying for the game every month being charged for 'cosmetic' extras. It's a bad idea and in the long run we lose out, but it's been successful so it won't go away.

 

[Subwayeatn]

If a gun or item is all about preference, then that means it may just be your favorite item.
But that's unfair, someone else will have their favorite item for free already in the game.

 

[FalloutJack]

Not interested. Give me a complete game or get the hell out. I don't mind if there's a special edition set out with more stuff, but don't gimme this nickel-and-dime bullshit when DLCs are already dubious as it is.

 

[F4LL3N]

I get what you're all saying. I'm just as against all this cash-cow stuff as the next person. I'm completely against this used-games crap, DRM crap, removing crap and selling it as DLC, etc. But theoretically it could work. It wouldn't be 'selling power'.

The reason I used Call of Duty as an example is because each gun has a different playstyle. So each gun does add an amount of uniqueness to gameplay. I used the MP5K as an example, as it is different from every other SMG, but it's still balanced.

Maybe you could get it as rare-drops if you don't want to pay for it. It works in TF2.

Ideally you are buying that weapon's uniqueness not its power

This.

EDIT: Someone said it wouldn't be fun. I think the opposite (if done right). Another reason I used CoD as an example, I had about 12 days play time up when traded it in. I had played all the maps XXXX times, I used every weapon to the point where they weren't fun anymore. I had no reason to play anymore. I didn't buy the last mappack because all the weapons were boring! If I could buy some World at War guns, or some MW2 guns (balanced), I would have continued playing.

Of course, if the developer released them for free, that would be great. But they won't be there's no money in it. Hence, DLC. No one really misses out. Because if you really want them, you'd buy them. If you don't, there's no disadvantage (ideally).

 

[cgentero]

In most multiplayer online games where DLC equipment is used, however (as in MMORPGs), if a full set of bought equipment is 5% better than anything another player can grind for months to finally acquire... and the DLC is instant, no work required, that's just ridiculously unbalanced.

The workaround for this is simple, just make equipment stats/effect based on your characters level e.g. say a sword that gives a critical bonus, so below level 5 its plus 1%, then at level 5 it becomes plus 2% and so on.

 

[JochemDude]

If they would sell a golden Ak47 when there is already a Ak47 in the game, sure. If they would just take a standard weapon, give it a few drawbacks and reskin it into a classic rifle, sure why not. As long as they aren't better than standard weapons, I'm totally fine with it.

 

[The Becker]

You shouldn't be able to buy power is all im going to say

 

[Ben Shortt]

TF2 route? Sure, go ahead.

ME2 route? Sorry, not a fan.

 

[JochemDude]

I did play a game the other game, Battlefield play4free and it did sell more powerful weapons which you had to buy with real currency
OR
you could also rent them with points you earn ingame (I could rent the most powerful weapon for a week after playing for 5 hours), how do you guys feel about that?