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

[F4LL3N]

A lot of people seem to hate the idea of weapons/non-aesthetic items sold through microtransactions. But I see big benefits doings so, so long as:

1. They're not overpowered. They could be slightly better, but not superweapons. You shouldn't NEED them. A standard weapon vs a DLC weapon should still be determined by skill.
2. The developer doesn't remove standard weapons to later sell as DLC.

The benefits?

1. Developers make extra cash.
2. Players get more content.

I'll use Black Ops for example, and let's say the MP5k wasn't actually in the game but you could buy it for a few bucks. It's no better than any other gun, it's mainly just preference. What's bad about that?

Although my actual idea would be $5 for a weapon pack(x3), e.g. SMG weapon pack, AR weapon pack, etc.

EDIT: Oh, in the Call of Duty example, you'd still have to level up to unlock the gun. It wouldn't automatically go into your inventory so you've got it level 1 every prestige.

 

[Valagetti]

Okay the golden rule is not to handicap anyone, because it becomes the one with the biggest wallet, racks up the most kills. I'm alright with DLC having shotguns n' other crap weapons etc.

 

[Truth Cake]

Certainly not! Because if a player kills me with one of those weapons- even if they aren't overpowered- I'll have something to complain about, and I'm all about complaining about why I didn't kill him before he killed me!

Seriously though, as long as they aren't game-breakers and they just support certain playstyles that other weapons can't, it's fine.

 

[Berenzen]

In the single player game, I say why not. However, in multiplayer games, I heavily disagree on it, simply because it unbalances the game, which should never happen.

 

[McNinja]

In RPGs maybe the item levels with you? Sort of like the Heirloom items in WoW. Although a weapon that isn't distinguishable in power from other weapons is good, because then you're buying for aesthetics.

 

[F4LL3N]

Well if you eventually unlock it anyway, yeah if people want to pay to get a little boost, or preference, I guess that's less offensive than the alternative.

Not a boost. I'm actually kinda against those, because that would eliminate one major aspect of the game.

You have to buy it for real money, but then still unlock it in the game at a certain level like normal guns. If you don't buy it with real money, then it doesn't even show up for you.

But why would the alternative be offensive? Anyone keeping up with the gaming scene knows publishers are looking for ways to bring in more cash. I'd rather this than some of their other ideas, as it also adds to gameplay. Especially in Call of Duty.

 

[ThePurpleStuff]

This does sound like it could work, as long as those rules are strict but not too strict. I can't tell you how many MMOs I've played that were free to play, but you couldn't get anywhere without buying cash shop items. When you play a game and money doesn't drop from monsters, the users screw the economy up.

A current MMO I'm playing has special lvl 30 armor at a cheap price in their cash shop that's better than the in-game armor by not too much. Those who can afford it get a bit of a boost, good on them, just don't abuse it.

 

[cgentero]

As long as they are balanced, as in no weapon is better than another just different stats\effects and such, and also you could get them from other than spending like random drops in TF2 or bought with reward points instead, then I would have no problem with it.

 

[IronicBeet]

Yes, let's give companies more ways to make money other than actually making a genuinely good game and showing concern for what the fans want. Excellent idea.

 

[The Virgo]

Ack! I thought the poll question was "Should weapons be sold as micro-transactions", so I voted "no". Now I see it's "Selling weapons as DLC is a bad idea?" <:-(

One of those "No" votes should be "Yes".

 

[Chairman Miaow]

A lot of people seem to hate the idea of weapons/non-aesthetic items sold through microtransactions. But I see big benefits doings so, so long as:

1. They're not overpowered. They could be slightly better, but not superweapons. You shouldn't NEED them. A standard weapon vs a DLC weapon should still be determined by skill.
2. The developer doesn't remove standard weapons to later sell as DLC.

The benefits?

1. Developers make extra cash.
2. Players get more content.

I'll use Black Ops for example, and let's say the MP5k wasn't actually in the game but you could buy it for a few bucks. It's no better than any other gun, it's mainly just preference. What's bad about that?

Although my actual idea would be $5 for a weapon pack(x3), e.g. SMG weapon pack, AR weapon pack, etc.

EDIT: Oh, in the Call of Duty example, you'd still have to level up to unlock the gun. It wouldn't automatically go into your inventory so you've got it level 1 every prestige.

You contradict yourself a bit there. The MP5K is a standard weapon. So in fact, players get less content, unless they are willing to pay more on top of what is already a pricey luxury item. NO THANK YOU.

 

[jesskit]

As long as they are balanced, as in no weapon is better than another just different stats\effects and such, and also you could get them from other than spending like random drops in TF2 or bought with reward points instead, then I would have no problem with it.

This is much like the extra credits discussion. I think that all weapon non aesthetic item dlc (not counting missions etc) should be available in game anyway, just a lot harder to get. You want to buy convenience not power. If you buy power, even just by a little bit as some are saying, then you are still paying to win. And saying but if its just a play style thing then why would people buy it unless it looks cool. Obviously devs will sell items (non aesthetic) that give a boost or it isn't worth spending money on.

 

[Grospoliner]

The only time when a weapon should be sold in a microtransaction is if that weapon provides only cosmetic changes and does not effect actual game play. Otherwise this results a separation of player base community, alienating them.

 

[Twilight_guy]

So long as they are examples of the legendary "side-grade" then its fine. Unfortunately if they are not more powerful then people tend to kind of not care. If they only exist as ways to improve your score in the internet pissing contest then lots of people won't care. Worst yet, lots of people will complain that any additional weapon, no matter how balanced, gives the player an advantage and its very hard to argue against this. Some weapons, while balanced, just might fit a player better and if he doesn't have it then he's at a disadvantage. Honestly weapons DLC bores me. I know how easy it is to put together a model, tweak some stats of an existing weapon into a new form and then slap it in a new DLC.

 

[twistedheat15]

Ack! I thought the poll question was "Should weapons be sold as micro-transactions", so I voted "no". Now I see it's "Selling weapons as DLC is a bad idea?" <:-(

One of those "No" votes should be "Yes".

lol don't worry, the poll s.w.a.t. isn't gonna burst through your window and beat you with spiked dildo bats for hitting the wrong responce.

 

[Nunny]

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

 

[Lukeman1884]

As long as they are balanced, as in no weapon is better than another just different stats\effects and such, and also you could get them from other than spending like random drops in TF2 or bought with reward points instead, then I would have no problem with it.

This is much like the extra credits discussion. I think that all weapon non aesthetic item dlc (not counting missions etc) should be available in game anyway, just a lot harder to get. You want to buy convenience not power. If you buy power, even just by a little bit as some are saying, then you are still paying to win. And saying but if its just a play style thing then why would people buy it unless it looks cool. Obviously devs will sell items (non aesthetic) that give a boost or it isn't worth spending money on.

Using my experiences with various "free-to-play" MMOs as reference, allowing someone to pay money to be straight up better/stronger than someone who doesn't is NOT a good idea. I agree with what the above poster says, you can pay for convenience, not the ability to just outclass people who don't.

 

[mjc0961]

Ack! I thought the poll question was "Should weapons be sold as micro-transactions", so I voted "no". Now I see it's "Selling weapons as DLC is a bad idea?" <:-(

One of those "No" votes should be "Yes".

Yeah, I just did the same. I don't know why people can't make the thread title and the poll question match up. Nearly every poll on the site inverses the two and then half the posts are people complaining that they clicked the wrong thing because the TC didn't have the good sense to make the thread title and poll question the same.

lol don't worry, the poll s.w.a.t. isn't gonna burst through your window and beat you with spiked dildo bats for hitting the wrong responce.

Of course not. They're going to do that to the TC.