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

[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.

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*

Yes, that would be buying power. Suddenly you have a complete revamping of the balancing scale that the initial LMGs (I'm assuming by "machine gun" you were referring to LMGs simply because they would benefit the most from faster reload times) did not have, and in the grand scheme of things that creates several problems.

The first is the leveling curve. Okay, let's say you start with 3 "machine guns" at Level 4 (the level you are permitted to make custom classes in Black Ops), and unless I'm wrong you actually do: the MP5K, M16, and the RPK. Basically, at least in Black Ops, all three of the guns are complete garbage when compared to the entire list of weapons. Now a noob starting out their first multiplayer run (or even an experienced pro who just prestiged) only has these options to begin with, whereas a noob starting out with a credit card and an excess amount of money to spend on downloadable guns with even a slight edge over the other 3 will perform better and therefore level faster, assuming both "noobs" in this example had relatively similar skill levels. Faster leveling = power.

My second problem with this is again, you can't possibly create a weapon that is worth the purchase without being over-powered in the first place. Allow me to explain: again, using the same scenario, let's assume you're right and adding new weapons to Call of Duty for download will do absolutely nothing to the balancing and that 4th new weapon we've added to the initial collection of the first three is just as balanced as any weapon in the game. However, as I said that would mean the gun can't possibly be that good, and if I'm spending any amount of money on a gun (which I would stake downloadable weapons to be $2 - $5 individually or $10 packs in the US) that I'm going to stop using as soon as I unlock one that doesn't totally suck, such as the FAMAS or Galil.

And thirdly, while you could integrate the weapons into the leveling system and have them locked just as all the other wonderful weapons are initially, I can't see a scenario where thousands of people are totally okay with spending money on something they can't use until they sink 10 hours into the game. I already paid $60 for Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, and while part of the appeal of the game is unlocking new toys to kill people with, I'm fine with the weapons available and am not going to pay extra money for ones that aren't available at the press of a button. I don't speak for everybody, maybe that is acceptable for some players, but I would certainly say those players are the minority.

There are alternatives, however. For example, in Halo: Reach, a large amount of players were demanding downloadable armor permutations to customize their Spartans in more ways than already available. While I'm a strong believer in only downloading cosmetic changes "if the price is right", Bungie (or 343) could have integrated them into the map packs as a bonus incentive to purchase. Unfortunately, the coding in the original maps couldn't render new armor, which isn't something they can just fix in a patch. Going back to Call of Duty, more camo and face paint wouldn't be a bad thing, but those are also features locked for quite some time, so that's maybe not the best idea.

All in all, while the idea of downloadable weapons might seem appealing now, it's not until you get no-scoped by a 6 year-old with irresponsible parents who bought him the new weapon pack do you realize there just isn't any way to implement them without ruining another great aspect of the title. I think FPSs should stick with what they do better, and that's adding more battlefields to prove your skills in.

 

[Bostur]

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.

I don't understand those BW DLCs at all. Why is a DLC weapon cooler than the ones already in the game?

If the game is too hard for the built-in weapons, they should add extra difficulty levels instead.

 

[Cheesus333]

I wouldn't go for it myself, but it seems reasonable. As long as they were properly balanced with standard content, of course.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

the problem is that there is no way to prove they didn't remove it from the game in order to have this dlc weapon. So even if they didn't it will seem like they did and will appear to be one more thing for these people to nickle and dime us with after a $60 purchase. No other form of mass market entertainment extorts its consumer base as much as video games. If they want to do microtransactions lets have the original purchase be less of an investment.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I don't mind them so much in a single-player title. Just Cause 2 did it quite well--they were fun to play around with, but were just as powerful as the in game weapons, but just blew things up in different ways. I'm all for an overpowered gun at times, though. There is something to be said for the days of Duke Nukem 3D, DOOM, and Serious Sam where you can just have a merry stroll down the corridor into an arena blowing everything before you into chunks no larger than the chicken breast. It's the same reason that levelling up your weapons in Ratchet and Clank to the highest they'll go then doing a new game plus mode just to see how hysterically fast a boss will disappear under the strain of what appears to be a handgun with the destructive power and casualty rate of your average ICBM. Is that worth buying? Well, yeah, occasionally.

 

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

The problem is that it's too easy to accidently make something too powerful so it's unfair, or too weak so there's no point. That's what homefront did with their shotgun.
If they are well balanced then they have to be unique or there would be no reason to use them over existing weapons. But if they are too unique then you're still selling power because multiple options is a sizeable advantage, hence the rage over that BF3 retail pack. Also, weapons in most modern shooters can't be too unique due to the realistic setting.

The only remaining option nicely covered by Extra Credits is to make the guns balanced and unique but most importantly make them available otherwise. This way you're selling conveniance and fast access rather than power. TF2 is an excellent example of this.
The problem with this plan? Publishers won't like it because people might not pay. Publishers are wrong but still unwilling to take the risk.

 

[The_Yeti]

HELL NO, TERRIBLE IDEA.

They need to stop nickle and dimin' us, buying a game used to and should still mean access to said articles FULL CONTENT now or in the future, its like buying a Puzzle, to open it, attempt completion, simply to see a void remarking that you must purchase said pieces separately.

 

[PhoenixKing]

The way I look at things is that if the weapons are overpowered, than it's not fair to the players who don't have that much cash. However, if they don't have any bonuses, the person buying the weapon is getting ripped off because why by something that's the exact same as everything else?

 

[Bobby_D]

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.

Once again, Jack says it best: "full game or gtfo"

That would be the key. Ideally, the DLC weapon packs would be extras, as opposed to making people buy the actual weapons that one needs to play the game (which I honestly could, in some not too distant future, see Activision attempting...attempting, but not actually pulling off). But again, I personally, am not a fan of DLC. I love Mass Effect 2, and it bugs me that stuff like "Lair of the Shadow Broker" wasn't just in the game already, but that's just small potatoes...what really bugs me is Day One DLC...stuff that was already finished by the time the game came out but not included with the rest of it.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

I like this idea, but I also like what Extra Credits mentioned not long ago about also making these things available to non-paying players. Sort of like what TF2 does: You can go to the store and buy the weapons, or you can get them through drops, crafting, or trading. Players get what they want with time or money--whichever they have more of to invest.

As you said, this is for the developer to get more extra cash so players can keep getting extra content. However, if it's optional, the player shouldn't feel like they are getting the shorter end of the stick. That will only make the developer look like a money-grubbing tyrant in the eyes of all the non-paying players. Plus, how are they supposed to feel welcomed and enticed to pay for the game if all they feel as a non-paying player is neglected and limited?

As EC said: If developers want to make their games free to play, they should not be terrified by the notion of people playing it for free.

And on your thing on the weapons being only "a little better": a little better is a little better. Two may not be much higher than one, but it's still the greater number. Just the fact that the weapon is different is enough for non-paying players to feel inadequate compared to the paying ones. But for it to be different AND more powerful? That's just mean. It's like giving someone a free pass to a waterpark, but never letting them out of the kiddie pool.

 

[Richardplex]

for single player games? go ahead, I won't touch them, I go for what the game is balanced around, I didn't even touch things like the Spectre Weapons unlocked after gaining 1000k credits in Mass Effect. As long as they don't take away weapons to turn them in DLC, I'm cool with them.

In multiplayer? as long as people can get them for free with enough time, and they are... you know what, what Extra Credits said, that's what I'm going to say in a less precise manner anyway.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Since when weapons in a game have been considered content? I pay for the content that had been developed for the game during the developing period, if a content that was developed during the games developing period, it should be part of the game I bought. If content is done after the release, then it can be sold as DLC. But still, if the bought gun is better than any other guns you get in the game, then it is selling power and it will destroy competitive gaming in that game.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

Yes, because spending money an weaponry just to be on equal terms with everyone who bought the weaponry is a bloody brilliant idea.

 

[GonzoGamer]

They've already started separating out stuff we would normally get on the launch disc.
If they keep peeling away more things to sell later as dlc, we wont be getting much more than a demo for $60.

Trust me, most of the companies that would do a scheme like that, don't need the extra money.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

It doesn't matter if the buy-only weapons are "Balanced" or not. Simply put, having more choice gives you an advantage. I can't believe people constantly bring up, "But if you're skilled, you can beat the people who buy all of the weapons!". Have they ever considered if the player who buys all the weapons is skilled as well?

 

[Stormz]

No...just no. That's a horrible idea. Because even if it starts out like that, they will always get greedy and start making overpowered weapons. You can't stop that, it happens in pretty much all games with microtransactions.

 

[cgentero]

The first is the leveling curve. Okay, let's say you start with 3 "machine guns" at Level 4 (the level you are permitted to make custom classes in Black Ops), and unless I'm wrong you actually do: the MP5K, M16, and the RPK. Basically, at least in Black Ops, all three of the guns are complete garbage when compared to the entire list of weapons. Now a noob starting out their first multiplayer run (or even an experienced pro who just prestiged) only has these options to begin with, whereas a noob starting out with a credit card and an excess amount of money to spend on downloadable guns with even a slight edge over the other 3 will perform better and therefore level faster, assuming both "noobs" in this example had relatively similar skill levels. Faster leveling = power.

A few things, lets compare your example here to mine, in mine each machine gun had one upside and one downside even the new one i.e. faster reload and less damage, in yours the three initial machine guns are inferior compared to the one bought. Another thing I mentioned there should be ways to attain this new machine gun other than buying with real money e.g. rewards points or random drops, here you assume the noob who didn't buy will never receive the new machine gun which would be false, and like I said a machine gun with a faster reload has a pseudo-advantage only in that initially people aren't use to it but it goes away. Let me make this point more clear, what is the difference between a player who unlocked the new machine gun and played against someone without compared to someone who bought the new machine gun and played against someone without it?

My second problem with this is again, you can't possibly create a weapon that is worth the purchase without being over-powered in the first place. Allow me to explain: again, using the same scenario, let's assume you're right and adding new weapons to Call of Duty for download will do absolutely nothing to the balancing and that 4th new weapon we've added to the initial collection of the first three is just as balanced as any weapon in the game. However, as I said that would mean the gun can't possibly be that good, and if I'm spending any amount of money on a gun (which I would stake downloadable weapons to be $2 - $5 individually or $10 packs in the US) that I'm going to stop using as soon as I unlock one that doesn't totally suck, such as the FAMAS or Galil.

You must not play TF2 right? because people pay for new weapons all the time that aren't overpowered just unique, an example the spy initially has a watch that cloaks but you can buy a watch that instead fakes his death instead and has a higher restore rate but also an equal faster drain rate, again you could get these things through random drops, BTW maybe Call of Duty is just bad example because from the sound of it weapons aren't terribly balanced to begin with in Black Ops.

And thirdly, while you could integrate the weapons into the leveling system and have them locked just as all the other wonderful weapons are initially, I can't see a scenario where thousands of people are totally okay with spending money on something they can't use until they sink 10 hours into the game. I already paid $60 for Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, and while part of the appeal of the game is unlocking new toys to kill people with, I'm fine with the weapons available and am not going to pay extra money for ones that aren't available at the press of a button. I don't speak for everybody, maybe that is acceptable for some players, but I would certainly say those players are the minority.

Here you aren't paying for convenience you're supposed to get what you pay for immediately, keep in mind its going to be balanced.

 

[Windcaler]

It is absolutely a bad idea! When it comes to DLC you do not sell power with it. Especially in multiplayer formats because those without the disposable income to affoard said DLC will fall behind the paying players. Seperating paying players to non-paying players is just a bad business model. We've seen it time and time again.