The Morality Of Microtransactions: Where's The "Evil" Line?

[The Rogue Wolf]

Today, when cruising one of the other game-related forums I frequent, I came upon this online slideshow [http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win], which went into exacting detail about the free-to-play gaming niche (specifically about Battlefield Heroes), the community and press response to it, and how that all affected the game's financial performance and metrics. I could write a slew of articles about that whole realm, but instead I'm writing this post to ask a question brought on by the very first comment on the above-linked slideshow. From someone identifying himself as Christoph Weiss, an author at radio FM4:

"To make a game like 'Battlefield Heroes' or 'Battlefield Play For Free' may be right to make more money. But it's morally wrong. Shame on you, Ben."

Note the exact words used there: "Morally wrong". This person seems to believe that making a free-to-play game with microtransactions is not only a bad business decision, but actually goes against common morality.

To this allegation, I must ask: Huh?

What makes a particular payment structure morally "right" or "wrong" in a game? What sort of sales method is a developer or publisher obligated to avoid, in order to "not be greedy"? Where is the line between "greedy" and "responsibly profitable"? And who makes the decision where it lies? Now, I know there are the self-entited whiners who believe that they have a right to have whatever they want for free, and that it is automatically greedy of someone else to want to make a profit from it- but I give them no weight in any rational argument, because it is highly unlikely that any of them have ever produced anything someone else would want to pay for. (Yeah, there's MY bit of morality. Take or leave as you wish.) But there have been absolute uproars about things such as EVE Online's $70 monocle and Team Fortress 2's hats, with scads of forum posters calling the companies greedy and claiming "this will ruin the game forever". But the thing about games that run on microtransactions such as this (at least, the ones where the developers/publishers are smart enough not to make free players complete second-class citizens) is that players are not at all required to buy any of these things to enjoy the game. And if I pay $30 in microtransactions for a handful of things that make the game an excellent experience for me, haven't I gotten more worth out of my money than I would have for paying $60 for the entire game (including all of the things I would never have used)? Am I immoral for getting enjoyment from a game for half the cost?

Seriously, I think the gaming community (and its attendant press) needs to have a nice, long discussion about their expectations from game developers and publishers. Not only are these "moral lines" incredibly blurry, but the slideshow I linked above shows that many of the people who shout about them the most turn around and give the company money afterwards anyway. And while it would be nice if all of our games would be completely free forever, somebody has to pay the bills for stuff like bandwidth, employee payroll, servers, etc. A company that does not make money to do this eventually closes- and then we all whine about how we can't play our favorite game anymore.

So the question I pose is this: How is a gaming company supposed to "morally" make a profit?

And if you believe that it's greedy to expect to be paid for producing and running an online game, then go tell your boss that you'd like to work for free so that your company can provide its goods more cheaply.

 

[phlegethonic]

The line between "Responsibly Profitable" and "Evil" when it comes to microtransactions is like the line between erotica and porn: You can't define it, but you know when something crosses it.

An example - The $70 EVE monocle. When you are charging more for an in-game vanity item than the real-world equivalent & the game *combined*, then you've crossed the line.
Another - Horse Armor. $5 in-game vanity item that no one else can see. Yeah, yeah, it was 240 MS points, but you had to buy $5 worth of MS points to get it.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

There is really no evil line. It's developer's right to charge what they want, it's player's choice to play, pay, or abandon the game. Nobody is forced to pay or play.

 

[evilneko]

When your game is pay-to-win as the title of the slideshow suggests, or to use Daniel Floyd's words, "selling power," that's just wrong. Really, just watch the Extra Credits video on Microtransactions. I can't really think of anything to add to it or disagree with in it.

I used to faff about on free-to-play microtransaction-based MMOs (before I figured out MMOs just weren't for me period) and other online games and the thing I hated most was when there were pay-to-win items available. It absolutely sucks to get trounced by someone just because they bought some unobtainable gear or other advantage that directly translates into power.

Let's take some examples then:

There's a Facebook game called Starship Command. I started playing it when it was pretty new and so got to witness how it grew and developed over time. In the game, you control and outfit a starship, and use it to engage in one-on-one battles with other players. One thing that appealed to me about the game was that having a ton of friends didn't necessarily translate into huge advantages in-game.

Unfortunately, paying money did. A player's real power in game came from their fighters, and the paid fighters were so vastly superior to the free ones that no free player could ever, ever hope to compete against a paid player, even if the paid player was using fighters of a lower tier.

This is how to do it wrong. I stopped playing the game after it became obvious that this problem would never be addressed.

I'm not sure whether I would call it evil or not, but it's a pretty shitty tactic and makes it look like the company does not respect, or even has contempt for, its free players.

 

[DustyDrB]

There's not an Evil Line. There's a diminishing returns line. That's what we call "speaking with your wallet". Don't like a practice? Don't support it with your purchase. Instead, support those who give more to their consumers. Just make a hard line for yourself and don't cross it. I support a good tension of companies doing whats best for them while the consumers act in their own interest.

 

[Steven Schuhly]

I think people are getting a little crazed over this stuff, I've got NO problem with vanity items costing whatever the developers want to charge. I don't think that there are any viable arguments to that, they don't change the game, period.

It's when they sell in-game items that affect the gameplay (a better gun, more lives, anything that would give an advantage). Whether the item is available elsewhere in the game or not is of no importance. You are allowing people with deep pockets to ruin the game.

This causes two things:

1. The community fails as devoted players are discouraged as they can't advance, and the learning curve is too high for new players.

2. Players (especially young children) start shelling out large amounts of money for these items, which leads them in to trouble (i.e. "Smurfberries" Syndrome). This causes bad press as the public thinks that the developers are taking advantage of gullible users.

Whenever these stories crop up, I can always relate to the problem (my 11 year old brother spent $100 on microtransactions last month, now he's not allowed to play the game ever again). I don't believe that it is fair to purposefully leave functionality or richness out of a game in order to make more money.

Side note: I just bought Tiger Woods 2011, I have to pay $3 a piece for all 10+ courses that aren't included in the game (but are included in the campaign!?). I can't play in all the events in the story mode, instead I have to completely opt out. What if NBA2k12 or Madden started leaving out teams unless you pay extra money? Sorry, this just gets to me.

 

[Earthmonger]

That was a good presentation, and I thank you for the link.

There is confusion between morality (the majority consensus) and personal opinion. The latter comes much more into play, I think.

I prefer the standard subscription model, which renders all of this conflict moot, while simultaneously exiling children from my games. That model is dying though, so it's time to adapt. I don't have any problems with microtransaction games. I buy convenience items regularly. Occasionally mounts. I have yet to find any MMO selling the Sword Of Win. "Advantage" items are typically marginal in affect.

Admittedly I think of F2P users as lower class citizens. I won't deny that. Peasants of the Realms. We need them of course, for the more menial economic elements of the games; elements I would rather skip over myself. They do make my play experience better.

And after saying that, I should solidly state that I have no aspirations of "being the best" at anything I play. I am not an epic Hero-type player. I don't care much about the king of the hill. I just want to enjoy my games to the point that I lose myself in them, and I don't mind paying for that experience in some way. I see no evil.

 

[bob1052]

Its a business, not some kind of feel good charity.

Anyone who even considers if something like this is evil is an idiot.