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

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The problem is here that if you don't make them more powerful than what exists already people won't buy them. If you do make them more powerful then you are just giving the advantage to more wealthy players and unbalancing your game.

I think in that case they should just leave it alone unless its just a cosmetic change.

 

[MercurySteam]

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.

The Firepower Pack just has extra unique weapons. The Phalanx heavy pistol is more powerful and has laser sighting, the the Mattock AR is semiautomatic and packs one hell of a punch compared to the other fully automatic rifles and the Geth plasma shotgun is the most powerful shotty I've ever used in the game and can be charged up to fire a burst of pellets that turns everything in front of you to mincemeat. So they're not just more powerful but also function quite differently than any of the other default weapons.

Plus Mass Effect 2 has five difficulty levels.

 

[The Heik]

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.

This right here is an idea I do not like. The point of weapon unlocks is to encourage you to branch out in your method of killings by giving you new options to try as you progress, and occasionally gives the player a goal to surge towards.

Games like Black Ops butt-rape this idea by making you have to pay in order to actually use that unlocked weapon. Not only does this render the leveling function effectively useless by adding a second level of criteria to unlock, but it also causes people to hoard that currency, creating early game stagnation as the majority spend all their dough on the exact weapons they want (but might not actually be good at, thereby wasting all that hard earned "cash") rather than trying out a new set of weapons for free, then using the ones they like from there on in, always having the option to use any other ones they've unlocked whenever they feel like it.

In regards to the weapon microtransactions, making what should be a core part of the game require physical payment (in addition to already buying the game) is an automatic unbalancer. This is the worst possible thing you could do for any competitive multiplayer situation. Those who buy are by default put at an advantage because they have more options in a versus situation, and those who don't, feel disadvantaged and more damningly, forced to spend more in order to play on an even field. That is just wrong.

The only time I've ever seen weapon microtransactions work is for co-op. My best example for this is Dawn of War 2's Last Stand. In LS, you are supposed to lose out against the enemy (the only victory situation being INCREDIBLY hard to achieve), so any advantage you can create via your build choice is wholeheartedly embraced by all involved players.

 

[F4LL3N]

I re-watched the EC episode on microtransactions. I agree with most of it except the 'don't sell power' part. There's a BIG market in it, and it can be done right. 22% said it's not a bad idea, and that's a fair bit when you consider the influence Extra Credits has on a lot of us.

I think it can be done without the shitstorm, and it's already been said in this thread and in the EC episode. Make it so you can buy it, find it in rare drops, trade it, craft it, and as EC said, earn real life currency in-game to essentially buy it for free.

Then using your credit card really is only for convience. No body is missing out or getting ripped in anyway. This model has already been proven to work, and could easily work on non f2p games too.

It essentially eliminates all but 1 problem. Balance! Because even if the developer does remove it to later sell, you can still get it for free. This model could even open up more options for us, the players.

For example, tournaments, with the prize being rarer items. Which would still be a convience thing, because you can still find it naturally or trade/craft it.

Honestly, what's the downfall?

 

[enriel]

Personally, I hate the idea of having things in a game that I can never have, unless I want to spend real money on them. The old adage goes, "Time is money", so why can't I simply unlock that nice $5 weapon when I have spent enough time doing so?
Have the base weapons, then the unlockable weapons, but also put the unlockable weapons up for sale. Then you get to choose between spending the real world money for immediate digital gains, OR spend the real world TIME to earn those same rewards.

 

[mjc0961]

No, weapons should never be sold that way. You say that they're only a little better. Well, guess what. That's still better. The paying players still get an advantage, even if it is small. Maybe the paid gun's magazine can hold 40 bullets while the free gun only holds 35. Not a huge advantage, right? But it's still enough that if they both start firing at the same time and the free guy runs out before the kill and has to reload while the paying guy gets to finish off the free guy with extra five bullets, you have given the payer an unfair advantage and ruined the balance of the game.

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?

Also, this. It's not like all the free players have all the skill and the only people who buy weapons are n00bs who don't know where the crouch button is. Skilled player with free gun VS skilled player with slightly better premium gun means the second guy is likely going to win most of the time.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Only so long as buying it is not the only method of getting it, otherwise it is a hostile-sounding remark to those who do not get the DLC.
I actually like TF2's model a lot. You can either buy the weapons, or earn them, or craft them. I like it.

 

[F4LL3N]

The reason TF2's model works so well is because you get rewarded for actually investing time into the game. Which is a great reward.

 

[Canid117]

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.

Yeah Charging five bucks for five new guns that have the same stats as guns that are already in game but have new models, sounds and textures would sell fairly well and probably wouldn't get bitched about nearly as much as $15 map packs.

 

[Eggsnham]

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.

I say no. Typically DLC weapons and gadgets tend to be more potent and look about eighty times cooler than the vanilla stuff.

Add that to the fact that Activision would probably charge $15 for such a pack, and you've got a problem. Why? Because the people who dedicate their lives to CoD, Battlefield, etc. will buy these guns, while the people who like to play a variety of games will be left with the blunt end of the deal and a multi-billion dollar company who now thinks that it's alright to do this sort of thing.

I hated it when Bad Company 2 did it, the stuff always look better and I think the MG3 got a damage buff when you bought the special kit.

I'm done rambling now.

 

[Nieroshai]

If it wasn't a superior or alternate-effect weapon, or in no way different from normal enough to warrant interest, bear with me,
[HEADING=1]WHY WOULD YOU SPEND MONEY ON IT???[/HEADING]

Think about it, why did horse armor in Oblivion get so much flak? Because it was in no way useful. It just made that ONE horse look a LITTLE different and give it a LITTLE more health. Would I spend $1.50 on a gun with a different paint job? Or a slightly different model? No, it'd better be a damn BFG or shrink/freeze ray to warrant me not just skipping out on it for the 100 other guns like it if we go with your COD example. DLC like normal-but-not-included guns should be free. Unique guns or character skins are worth pennies. Expansion backs are what are genuinely worth dollars.

 

[Chibz]

but don't gimme this nickel-and-dime bullshit when DLCs are already dubious as it is.

How are DLC inherently dubious? If used right (to be fair, many companies DON'T use DLC right) it's a way for the company to profit off of sales long after the actual sale, while supporting the game for the consumer.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

Hello, I just joined these forums.

I think the serious problem with DLC is not that it can unbalance multiplayer games but, as several people have said, that it's a goddamn ripoff, almost always. Developers are blatantly making entire games and then holding parts of them back to sell as DLC. A downloadable *expansion pack* is fine, if it contains actual new content, missions, areas, maps or whatever, if it's clear that the developers have gone back to the game and made a new, shorter, game. That's what "expansion pack" used to mean, not a couple of new weapons and the option of pink hair.

And while tiny DLC content packs are taking over from expansion packs, what would once have been called expansion packs are now being sold as new games, sequels. Anyone play Half-Life: Opposing Force? That was an expansion pack: a new, smaller game, made with the same software, sold for less than the price of a full game. Now look at Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or the newer one. Once upon a time they would have been considered expansion packs to AC2.

Anyway, didn't intend to enter these forums on such a cynical, negative note, but couldn't help saying my piece.

Hi everybody!

 

[Hides His Eyes]

I have to agree with that Chibz. I hope no one got the impression from my other post that I think DLC is inherently wrong. It's just that, as you say, companies invariably abuse it. Almost all DLC is either blatantly pre-made along with the rest of the game and sold as something extra, or else it's just very, very bad value for money.

 

[FalloutJack]

but don't gimme this nickel-and-dime bullshit when DLCs are already dubious as it is.

How are DLC inherently dubious? If used right (to be fair, many companies DON'T use DLC right) it's a way for the company to profit off of sales long after the actual sale, while supporting the game for the consumer.

The answer comes in the three words 'if used right'. They're not always, they can/have bugged out, and I do hear complaints every now and then. I don't like how DLCs are and there are a number of other people who don't as well. That spells dubious. But yes, if done right, but they aren't always at that.

 

[franconbean]

I've voted no, but it was a snap decision that I'm now rethinking, the business model used in games such as league of legends seems to work, where additional playable characters can be unlocked by either microtransaction or ingame currency. That way the Golden Rule is bent but not broken, as Those willing to shell out get an advantage that is temporary at best.

Also, i would only support it really if the core game was cheap or free. Otherwise, you have already raided my wallet once for this title, mr. McGamecorporation, get back, I say!

 

[jpoon]

I think it's a bad idea, all you are doing is begging corporations to nickel and dime the fuck out of everyone for items that, in theory, should already be included in the game. I say no!

 

[F4LL3N]

I think it's a bad idea, all you are doing is begging corporations to nickel and dime the fuck out of everyone for items that, in theory, should already be included in the game. I say no!

Not necessarily. What if a game is released full of quality content (specifically weapons), but 6 months down the track the devs/community think of a great new item that perhaps wasn't thought of previously.

I think it's already been show that devs have no interest in adding extra content for free, even if that extra content is a great idea that would 'refresh' the game. I've never seen it happen yet, excluding DLC. Something like this would give them a reason to invest a bit of extra time into providing extra content - and in a FPS, weapons are content.

... The Maddock rifle in ME2 and a lot of the other extra weapons were way too badass to be a DLC, should have been put in the actual game.

That's subjective. Just because that's happened before doesn't mean all examples after it will be the same.