Gamers Should Pay MORE MICROTRANSACTIONS!? and be happy about it?

Game News: Gamers Should Pay MORE MICROTRANSACTIONS!? and be happy about it?

Fresh off EA temporarily removing microtransactions from Star Wars Battlefront 2, one analyst thinks gamers are not only overreacting, but should be happy to pay MORE in microtransactions because they're such a good deal.

Binge Mode

More Game News

See All Game News Videos

Other Videos You'll Like

Comments (20)

  • EthanM. FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    The analyst is using the wrong metrics for comparison. buying a game is not like getting cable its like running a netflix subscription(way less). If you redid the math with those numbers instead it would reflect very differently.

  • RiverRunning

    3 weeks ago

    I remember when they said that cinema tickets were too cheap in the UK and so raised them using their oligopoly grip on cinemas... some of the independents kept lower prices but since the big ones shifted the cost of renting the films went up and put a lot out of business. I'll tell you what happened to the cinema going public though... it dried up; the number of people who go to the cinema more than once a week, more than once a month etc. these days is miniscule per capita compared to other countries with lower cinema admission prices (e.g. the USA where there is also a lot more innovation when it comes to the cinema experience... even the independents here are not particularly innovative and very much trail behind cinema experiences in most other OECD countries.


    If they raise game prices they will have to do it in every segment and hope one of them doesn't buck the trend because all those entertainment hours people had went into the then new trend of home video and photography (British are weird), videos (kids; ask your parents about VHS tapes ;) and computer gaming. The same will happen again, people will move to something cheaper if you try to up-price all your shitty stories when it patently isn't worth the price of the download (why do you think that most books sold these days have good stories compared to the days of yore; and why it is now so difficult to become a (paper) author). No more penny dreadfuls these days.

  • BluntObjekt FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    MTX = microtransactions.  Really?  This Key Banc representative should not have skipped Creative Writing class.    Come on, MSNBC?   I know that it can't be trusted. With these big name publishers calling the shots there's little chance that the actual games people want to play will see the light of day.    I say these gamers should stop paying for halfway made games that drop full development staff support after a year's time. TBH- I couldn't care any more than I already do about how many dollars per hour someone spends on a $60-$80 game to unlock cosmetics and other unrelated crap.   Stop giving your paying audience recycled trash in gaming form..How about a No BS policy.   Whether its a lauded franchise on mobile devices, no amount of add-ons is going to redeem this mess. Instead of taking notes from Crapcom and Activision How about publishers like EA actually give us games that aren't golden wrapped feces with all the bells and whistles.  This is why games like NBA Live are dead in the water.    Call me crazy but how ridiculous of a millionaire to tell the working class that they aren't working hard enough.


       Maybe it's time for triple A developers to step aside to let a more forgiving publisher do things differently  Oh boo hoo, poor Disney, EA and DICE.   You had plenty of time to figure why microtransactions are the subject of such scrutiny.  "This is odd, They aren't happy but we delivered what we promised."  Yeah it's still a turd in a box, and guess what it still stinks.     SMH- you want gamers to pay more to play more with microtransactions.  Without getting more bang for their buck.    Kill that noise.        

  • Shmittles FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    jeez, talk about missing the point. (the analysts, not y'all)


    It's not about the total money spent, it's about taking a perfectly good game, chopping it up to pieces, and then selling it back day 1 on top of the base price in tiny little pieces that completely undermine the game balance in PvP environment.


    If they had just sold it at $80, completely microtransactionless, with everything reasonably atainable in-game, I would've been totally fine with it. Sure, there would be complaints, but I can't imagine it being anywhere near as bad as this mess turned out to be.


    I for one am all for a bump in base price if it means getting rid of all these stupid busness-tactic shenanigans that we all keep having to deal with after buying the game. With those gone, it's just the game as it is. No lingering questions about whether or not the game's been designed with marketing incentives in mind, no sudden de-emersifying prompts to sell you trinkets, and no more chopped up pieces of game that you have to buy to get the intended experience. It's simple, it's clean, and above all, it's HONEST.

    • Glyphwright FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Hipster of Masochism

      3 weeks ago

      "it's about taking a perfectly good game, chopping it up to pieces, and then selling it back day 1 on top of the base price in tiny little pieces that completely undermine the game balance in PvP environment"


      Except nuBattlefront 2 is not a good game.

  • JonnyVicious FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    Loot boxes with cosmetic items = ok.  Loot boxes that lock the game behind a paywall = not ok.


    It's pretty simple.


    Also here's a thought, maybe you're putting too much into your games at a $60 price point.  Maybe start focusing on story again, or at least one that you can finish in the "base" game.  Or how about just an overall pleasant gaming experience that gives the player a sense of replayability towards your game.  These are very simple concepts that, as an older gamer, I feel have been lost over the years when it come to game development.  

  • Zev_06 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    I would personally be fine with the price of an $80 dollar game if I was guaranteed there would be no micro transactions in the game. That would let me know for sure that the game was not built around making you feel like you need to spend more money so you can get the targeted experience the designers meant for the player to have.


    Publishers always talk about how they offer micro transactions to give players the option of skipping the grind in a game if they want to. However, if they really just wanted to giver players the option to skip the grind in a game, then they should just put in cheat codes like they did back in the day and not actually charge players to skip the grind. Charging customer to skip some kind of grind in a game is purely to make more money off of their players and not to help them out with other options to skip content.

  • Glyphwright FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Hipster of Masochism

    3 weeks ago

    Lootboxes and microtransactions are fundamentally anti-consumer and exist for the sole purpose of squeezing more money out of gamers than they would be reasonably willing to pay. Any analyst that says anything to the contrary of this irrefutable fact is either a complete moron, or a corporate shill.


    Do not be fooled. Microtransactions are NEVER good for gamers, or for the games they are in, for that matter.


    Wake up, sheeple.

  • Rocktober FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    So this Evan Wingren guys firm is affiliated with EA: https://imgur.com/gallery/oS4IA 


  • Dernwine1988 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    Agreed with most of the comments below. This isn't just tone deaf by the analysts but terrible analysis of the situation in general. Microtransactions are (sadly) not the problem here, and if they where giving their customers good advice they'd say some thing along the lines of "Don't panic this isn't gamers up in arms over microtransactions, this is gamers up in arms over *badly implimented* microtransactions." They'd get their point across without coming across as snearing condescending ***ts treating a genuine complaint about game design as people being cry babies.

    Next even if gaming is a comparatively good deal, it's not the amount of work or the theoretical per hour price of triple A Gaming their (sketchy) maths works out, it's the amount people are willing to pay for it. And if Gamers (aka the Market) count the per hour value of gameplay as less than the per hour value of a rented movie then that's what game are worth. 

    Over all a very condescending, badly sourced, misinforming, article. And if I need finanical advice in the next few years I know one firm I won't be going to.

  • cherch222

    3 weeks ago

    "We're gamers!" (We just have the money to not care how much they cost so fuck everyone else) Anyone else see that unspoken quote in there?

  • jcdragon16 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    They can complain about the cost of making a game all they want, they chose to increase the budget. Other developers manage just fine with budgets way smaller.

    Thanks to the price of games (£50 here in the UK) and the government cuts meaning less disposable income, I haven't bought a new AAA game in well over a year cause I straight up can't afford £50 on one game, and yet if I managed to save up enough for one, I'd be faced with that game constantly asking for more money, fuck that.

    I'm not the only one I know either in this situation.

    • DavidtheWavid FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      3 weeks ago

      Some companies manage, yes, but that's stuff like Journey or Rime or Life is Strange that don't have to worry about 4K textures and realistic lighting effects, while stuff like Nier Automata is much more expensive to make

  • DavidtheWavid FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    If a game's worth buying at $60, it's worth buying at 70. I'd much rather pay more for a complete game than have this shit plague good games. 

    • CerevisiaMagus FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      3 weeks ago

      I feel the same and that's coming from an Aussie who has to pay with an arm and a leg

  • JakovAces FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    Here's my problem with analysts; they tend to make blanket statements about the industry based on one or two games. Gamers complain about Battlefront 2's MTXs and suddenly they forget that games like Overwatch can have a lot of success with them while still not pissing off their customers. Also remember how they tried to say that 3D platforming collect-a-thons were dead when Yooka-Laylee came out? Turns out you just needed a game like Super Mario Odyssey to do it well.

  • nil911 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    The analysts seemed to have completely missed the point. For the most part, people were up in arms about the way microtransactions were implemented, not the fact they existed. The gaming community at large has more or less accepted the fact microtransactions and paid DLC are part of the way games work these days. What was not (and is not) ok is the fact major aspects of the game play (aspects that a majority of gamers felt should have been either much more accessible or accessible from the start seeing as how they were that way in the previous game) were locked behind either massive time gates or pay gates (and I suspect these analyst types are the kind of people who like to say time is money). I get that there's a lot of pressure on developers/publishers to get more than just the $60/unit and I've payed a lot more than that for a good number of games without feeling overcharged, but it's never been for a game I thought required I pay more to be competitive or gain access to what I believe should be core content.

  • jomo2155 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    3 weeks ago

    It's not about money, it's about the ethics of put the game behind a hidden paywall

  • OniZonda FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Hokage

    3 weeks ago

    While it's true that we pay relatively less per hour, we also play it for hours on end to justify that balance. Some people spend $60 and play it 3 times over the year, just because they can. Others can only afford to have a handful of games each year so they stretch that one game out as long as possible. Other games are rinse and repeat so the value of those games should be calculated differently (imo). If you're comparing price per hour for entertainment value though, Netflix and HBO blow gaming out of the water. Even cable is pennies on the dollar for individual series. The price for gaming doesn't need to be raised, we need to value games more. Which is where MTX and DLC come in. I understand not everyone wants them, but for certain productions, it's a justified implementation of what amounts to donations. Blizzard nailed it, Activision is alright about it (I'm not particularly thrilled with it in D2, but oh well), EA just dropped the ball cause they thought it was a free pass as long as the people who they're trying to sell it to will accept it as being an alternative to grinding. Which that implementation of it completely skews the entire argument because we're paying more to play less. Not only that, it really feels like pay to win and in multiplayer, that can't happen. Otherwise, the person who drops the most money will always win and scare away any other person who might enjoy the game otherwise. Anyway, I don't know where I'm trying to go with this point now, but the idea behind what EA did is wrong for a lot of reasons, and MTX are here to stay because 5% of people will utilize it (or whatever that stat was in the other video).


    tldr - EA done goofed and (to me) that analyst kinda shot his own argument down in this case, even tho he has some valid points.

    • Rocktober FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      3 weeks ago

      He also has an affiliation with EA: https://imgur.com/gallery/oS4IA