{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/17/2018 6:13:33 PM
23
Should games with Microtransactions and Lootboxes be Free to Play?
Hey Gaming Community!
Just asking a simple question to get people's opinions on the matter! Should games, whether they be "Triple A" or Indie, be Free to Play if they have Microtransactions and/or Lootboxes?
Leave your thoughts below and be sure to vote! Thanks for reading and have a nice day!
-
2 RepliesDepends on the type of microtransactions. If it's just camos/skins you can buy then that's not enough to justify a free game but maybe free expansions. If it's lootboxes and in game currency then I guess it's fine but I'd prefer that it not get in the way of the game too much via selling high powered gear/locking the player out of necessary game functions (inventory slots in Warframe. And don't give me that "hurr durr just trade ingame and get the plat for it that way". They shouldn't be locked in the first place and they kill the game for people who want to collect warframes but can't get the necessary funds to unlock them.)
-
4 RepliesI'm fine with games costing $60, having DLC or whatever, and also having MT's in them. As long as I'm not required to spend that extra money to play the game I don't mind. Games like Assassin's Creed: Origins do a good job with them and you can buy gear if you want, but it's not needed to play through the game. I really didn't even mind how Shadow of War did MT's honestly. You earned money in game to buy certain types of boxes and if you wanted top of the line orc's or gear without having to play you could spend real money. The reality is that lootboxes and MT's are here to stay whether it's with F2P games or paid games. When you look at the revenue paid games generate with MT's a company would be stupid to not include them in the game. If a publisher steps over the line, the gaming community corrects them like they did with Battlefront 2.
-
26 RepliesThis is only an issue for console gamers. PC gamers realized a long time ago that certain game experiences couldn't be underwritten by a one-time expenditure of $60. That if you wanted a long-term relationship with a game that you had to pay for the overhead (plus profit) of providing that experience. Namely server maintenance, frequent updates, new content, etc.... PC gamers have been much more willing to fund these types of experiences. Which is why they are more widely available in the PC world. The problem in the console gaming world is that----increasingly----console gamers WANT this PC gaming-style experience. But they are UNWILLING to pay the market value for that level of service. Because this notion of the $60 "complete game" is still a stubborn (though obsolete as a Blockbuster Video store) trope fixed in the minds of console gamers. Which is why you have a situation like what is going on with the Destiny franchise right now. Where you have a community that wants a game maintained like an MMO. Fed new content like an MMO. Expect to play for hundreds and thousands of hours without running out of things to do..... ....but thinks its some sort of outrage that they can't "have" all this for $60.
-
If a game is 60$ and up then you shouldn’t have micro transactions in it. If a game however is 30$ or 20$ then I’d say it’s ok just like with free games it’s ok. But full price games shouldn’t have them
-
They shouldn't be free but also shouldn't cost more $70
-
My opinion on this, feel free to challenge me Almost any game that has them. you can get a long with out them just fine. For example gems in cash of clans don’t need to buy can just save up one at a time takes a while but eventually I get it. As for the consoles destiny 2 and battle front 2. I don’t need the shaders and mod cards to be good I can just wait for it to drop or it to be sold. The whole loot box thing is just a matter of self control. But I can see how people who have problems with self control or gambling would have a hard time with it. Sorry guys, you can’t have free things the market just doesn’t work like that the company has to charge some form of price when you first get the game. So they can stay in business and the employees can provide for them selves and families. THE LOOT BOXES ARE OPTIONAL GUYS JUST MOVE ON ALREADY!!!!
-
4 RepliesIt depends. I feel like if they're purely cosmetic (Destiny 2 Overwatch etc) there's no harm in allowing you spend more to get more. However in the case of game we're you can buy sizable advantages (CoD pre-fix Battlefront 2) then they shouldn't even be included as it makes a very unbalanced game.
-
2 RepliesNo. If a studio wants to support their post-launch roadmap with cosmetic MTX then that's fair. What becomes problematic is when MTX affect the gameplay itself—or better yet, when a game has a season pass/ paid DLC in addition to the [b]f[/b]ucking microtransactions. Call bullshit on those assholes, but don't paint the entire industry with such broad strokes.
-
Depends on the game and the micro transactions. Not all games with Microsoft at start should be condemned to hell
-
Lootboxes shouldn't exist in the first place.
-
1 ReplyNope, this is how games are, get over it.
-
3 RepliesMTX if done correctly I have no big issue with in both FTP or retail games. If they want some money for a taunt, dancemove or some skin I see no real issue with that. Lootboxes on the otherhand are exploitative bullshit and have no place in any type of game be it FTP or retail.
-
Microtransactions in video games? WHAT A CONCEPT
-
3 RepliesLoot boxes should be illegal.
-
It all kind of depends on the state of the game without micro transactions
-
More people are apt to download free games because they are free. More people are willing to pay MTX in free games. Big AAA publishers make more money form MTX than the actual game now. AAA publishers would probably make more money, because they won't be asking for an admission price and more people would probably play it. I would play Battlefront 2 if it were free, because I'm not giving EA a penny.
-
17 RepliesSo basically you want all games to be like trial versions and any extra content to be paid for? That's what will happen if you try to force companies to provide you with free games. I don't remember buying any lootboxes and rarely do microtransactions. But I could care less if others want to or not. [b]I do have a real problem with a company being forced to give away their products for free. [/b]
-
As long as it's cosmetic only, I'm cool with loot boxes. Survival of the fittest
-
4 RepliesFree to play should be allowed to sell loot. Games that cost money should always have two pathways to loot, time played and $$.
-
No. Games that depend on them heavily I suppose yeah, but if it's a side thing without any p2w elements the game shouldn't be demoted to f2p.
-
2 RepliesAll depends on how the game is setup. For example i have no problem with halo 5s system because they use their lootbox system as a way to fun free DLC. Games like overwatch use a similar kind of system (though i do wish the 30 dollar option was at least offered to console players, that wasnt right). In contrast you have games like destiny that want to double dip, they want payed loot boxes while still having you pay full price for the original game and pay for DLC (and a way to high of a price for DLC to boot). There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do them, and it is up to the consumers to show companies which we feel is right and which is wrong.
-
1 ReplyYes. Especially if they have a season pass or dlc. Keep the extra stuff at a cost but remove the price of the base game. Especially if it has loot boxes and stuff like that. Main reason 1 it would be fair to the consumers 2 it would bring in way more players 3 it would keep a steady playerbase.
-
1 ReplyNo, they just shouldn't also have paid dlc.
