Poll: Why weapons should be sold as microtransactions/DLC.
- Thread starter F4LL3N
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes you can always re-rent them, I'm good at FPS's so the average player would likely spend around 7 hours, for it. Standing a chance with regular weapons... Not really they are just better, it's possible, but they have the upperhand. You can also rent them for a day and for a month.cgentero said:
But you can get rent everything that paying users can buy, nothing is exclusive
They work on the principle that, with effort you can use the best weapons, but possibly nothing else in the rather advanced customization section. You can realistically not have both without paying, it's one or the other.
I'm all for buying power. I imagine the people who aren't either can't afford it, or don't need to because of inherent skill or an abundance of free time. If I can bypass grinding thousands of "monster x" with a slight chance of getting a weapon drop by forking over a couple of RL bucks, I'm going to. My time is more valuable than my money.
That being said, there should still be a difference in the appearance of the items in question, so that everyone can see who put in the time and who put in the money. That way those players who want to feel elitist with their "fairly received" weapons can still look down on those of us who don't care what others think and are in a game to have fun.
That being said, there should still be a difference in the appearance of the items in question, so that everyone can see who put in the time and who put in the money. That way those players who want to feel elitist with their "fairly received" weapons can still look down on those of us who don't care what others think and are in a game to have fun.
I think it really depends on the game for me.
Take for example, Team Fortress 2. You're able to buy weapons both in packages as well as single weapons. But, you have several other ways to get those weapons outside of the store. You're able to craft them, get them randomly as a drop, trade for them, or (for the old class update weapons) get them via achievements. This allows players to get basically any weapon in the game pretty quickly, making the store a weapon option more for the very unlucky or impatient. To me, this makes having the store not as big of issue as a game which offers weapon DLC packs which are side grades, but no way to obtain them other than buying that DLC pack.
Seeing someone beat me because he bought a DLC pack for a powerful gun is very frustrating. If it happens often, it ruins a game for me. I don't like losing because I didn't pay for extra bits of DLC.
Take for example, Team Fortress 2. You're able to buy weapons both in packages as well as single weapons. But, you have several other ways to get those weapons outside of the store. You're able to craft them, get them randomly as a drop, trade for them, or (for the old class update weapons) get them via achievements. This allows players to get basically any weapon in the game pretty quickly, making the store a weapon option more for the very unlucky or impatient. To me, this makes having the store not as big of issue as a game which offers weapon DLC packs which are side grades, but no way to obtain them other than buying that DLC pack.
Seeing someone beat me because he bought a DLC pack for a powerful gun is very frustrating. If it happens often, it ruins a game for me. I don't like losing because I didn't pay for extra bits of DLC.
I very much disagree that weapons should be available as DLCs. Weapons are not content on their own, they are a gameplay mechanic. As a gameplay mechanic they need to be designed to fit the game they appear in. Buying weapons in a video game is like buying extra money in Monopoly, it defeats the purpose of playing the game.
Adding weapons as DLC will create some balance issues that are almost impossible to solve. Either the weapon isn't needed making it mostly useless as a DLC, or it is needed and game design will suffer. In one case the ones who don't own the weapon will get a worse playing experience, in the other case it is the ones who own the weapon that suffers from this.
Adding weapons as DLC will create some balance issues that are almost impossible to solve. Either the weapon isn't needed making it mostly useless as a DLC, or it is needed and game design will suffer. In one case the ones who don't own the weapon will get a worse playing experience, in the other case it is the ones who own the weapon that suffers from this.
I'm not bothered. As Extra Credits said, selling power is wrong. If you sell something like a machine gun that has a higher rate of fire than other, then you reduce the fire power or the magazine (or any of the stats). Balance it out because if you're being sold a weapon then chances are you want to use it from the start.
Whenever you can easily delineate two groups, Mp5K Group will call Gunless Group "Poor Noobs" and Gunless will call them "Elitist Moneyburners".
Microtransactions need to be invisible (or at least multiple choices of visibility) and not "pay to win".
If you saw the absoloute hell that the Halo hat caused in TF2, or the Portal 2 hats, then you'd know why even aesthetic DLC needs to be contained.
Microtransactions need to be invisible (or at least multiple choices of visibility) and not "pay to win".
If you saw the absoloute hell that the Halo hat caused in TF2, or the Portal 2 hats, then you'd know why even aesthetic DLC needs to be contained.
I dont see as content they are tools to be used when consuming a games content and if you are giving the tools to some players and not others you have an issue because players are going to be pissed balanced or not and if you piss of the players they are going to trade the game in early putting it back in circulation faster and unlikely to buy your product first hand
best saving DLC for actual content like maps and missions and if the dev has fucked up at monetising their game well that's their own damn fault
best saving DLC for actual content like maps and missions and if the dev has fucked up at monetising their game well that's their own damn fault
let's break this down for a moment and have a look at a few angles
i play crysis 2 multi-player, ive played cod, ive played battlefield, ive played a few oldschool shooters and honestly if you have one weapon versus another different weapon in 'x' given circumstance
'somone' always has the advantage due to clip size, spray cone, sights, power drop, ect
because the two weapons are slightly different however you always see in these multiplayer games the same 4-5 names end up at the top of the scoreboards
what i'm saying here is if they airent selling free neuclear strikes, who gives a crap if they sell a gun with +0.01% fire rate and reload speed?
it's as rediculus at the people that argue discreet network cards theoretically stabilize network latency 50 nanoseconds faster and therefore get your attack on the line faster
which is true, on a case by case basis, but human reaction-times are OVER a thousand times slower than that and fatigue after every round
yet you still get better over time? that's because you learn the maps and your enemy's tactics
it's not really anything to do with speed when you know where to be what to do and how to hide / reload in peace so you're always ready to slaughter
you have to look at these games and realize this is x number versus y number in z situation therefore the outcome will be blah blah blah assuming everyone plays perfectly
and people love to believe they are the optimal player ( nobody is )
therefore combat tactics will have a larger role in your survivability and or victory / points / perks than who has a minorly improved gun
that said, if the minorly improved gun is less than 10% of the value of the game i really dont see why people would deny themselves a new shiny toy
dlc only becomes a requirement to purchase if all of the following are true:
your game is balanced around the item ( ie guns )
your item is fairly expensive, thus making some people not buy it due to it being an insult or whatever. ( ie, some of the community wont have it so you can reasonably assume you will have it and they wont if you buy it )
your game is competitive in nature
the item for sale massively alters the balance of power ( and i mean you have time for example in a shooter game to feel someone shooting your back turn around and smash them instantly with it, things that break the game in other-words )
if anyone can think of a serious example, then that is a failed dlc system
a good dlc system should make the game more fun, add items like flags you can stab people's corpses with that say 'lol owned' or other things that are fun, and they should be relatively cheap, so people buy them because that's the point it's a premium feature to add fun and give the developers a few extra pennies
if you unbalance your game to try to force people to pay silly prices, you may end up loosing customers, if you create an ever-positive environment, then you'll never alienate anyone and you'll still make a bit more cash from your die-hard fans
i play crysis 2 multi-player, ive played cod, ive played battlefield, ive played a few oldschool shooters and honestly if you have one weapon versus another different weapon in 'x' given circumstance
'somone' always has the advantage due to clip size, spray cone, sights, power drop, ect
because the two weapons are slightly different however you always see in these multiplayer games the same 4-5 names end up at the top of the scoreboards
what i'm saying here is if they airent selling free neuclear strikes, who gives a crap if they sell a gun with +0.01% fire rate and reload speed?
it's as rediculus at the people that argue discreet network cards theoretically stabilize network latency 50 nanoseconds faster and therefore get your attack on the line faster
which is true, on a case by case basis, but human reaction-times are OVER a thousand times slower than that and fatigue after every round
yet you still get better over time? that's because you learn the maps and your enemy's tactics
it's not really anything to do with speed when you know where to be what to do and how to hide / reload in peace so you're always ready to slaughter
you have to look at these games and realize this is x number versus y number in z situation therefore the outcome will be blah blah blah assuming everyone plays perfectly
and people love to believe they are the optimal player ( nobody is )
therefore combat tactics will have a larger role in your survivability and or victory / points / perks than who has a minorly improved gun
that said, if the minorly improved gun is less than 10% of the value of the game i really dont see why people would deny themselves a new shiny toy
dlc only becomes a requirement to purchase if all of the following are true:
your game is balanced around the item ( ie guns )
your item is fairly expensive, thus making some people not buy it due to it being an insult or whatever. ( ie, some of the community wont have it so you can reasonably assume you will have it and they wont if you buy it )
your game is competitive in nature
the item for sale massively alters the balance of power ( and i mean you have time for example in a shooter game to feel someone shooting your back turn around and smash them instantly with it, things that break the game in other-words )
if anyone can think of a serious example, then that is a failed dlc system
a good dlc system should make the game more fun, add items like flags you can stab people's corpses with that say 'lol owned' or other things that are fun, and they should be relatively cheap, so people buy them because that's the point it's a premium feature to add fun and give the developers a few extra pennies
if you unbalance your game to try to force people to pay silly prices, you may end up loosing customers, if you create an ever-positive environment, then you'll never alienate anyone and you'll still make a bit more cash from your die-hard fans
So if you went on to Black Ops right now and there was a bolt-action scopeless rifle for $2, you would be pissed?
Or if you went on to Halo Reach and there was a lightsaber for $2.50, you'd be pissed?
I'd be over the moon. More content that you otherwise not get.
I don't see how anyone's missing out. If you really want it, then it's only a few bucks. It's not a game breaker (although I really want to emphasize balance).
Or if you went on to Halo Reach and there was a lightsaber for $2.50, you'd be pissed?
I'd be over the moon. More content that you otherwise not get.
I don't see how anyone's missing out. If you really want it, then it's only a few bucks. It's not a game breaker (although I really want to emphasize balance).
The Firepower Pack for Mass Effect 2 was utterly worth it. The Equalizer Pack is only some crappy armor for Shepard and the Aegis Pack is a new sniper rifle and a great set of armor but again, is only really for Shepard. The Firepower Pack however comes with a new heavy pistol, shotgun and assault rifle for the entire team to use and are superior to almost all the other weapons you'll pick up in the game.
exactly, if buying these superior weapons is the only way to get them, then you end up handicapping those that dont want to or cant spend that moneyValagetti said:
also a couple of weeks ago extra credits had a video on this...though some one else may have already mentioned it
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3689-Microtransactions