What's funny about this stuff, is Apex Legends developers more than likely gets paid to include this cross promotional material in their game, then they turn around and sell it to players. Really this is all just an ad, and if you pay for an ad you're an idiot.
The big price tag is part of the ad! That's how you get mentioned and people speak about it.
Some idiots will also buy it, so there's that, too.
I actually don't care if a free to play game has cosmetics you can buy. They need to make some money some how. As long as you don't get a real advantage by paying money.
I also don't mind being able to purchase cosmetic, non-gameplay affecting items. But I have always felt the prices are wack as fuck, even back when Horse Armor dropped. A skin should not be more than $1, IMO. Especially skins that are nothing more than a color swap.
Or you could mod the game, you know.
I'm not paying so I can see the skin. I'm paying so everyone else can see how cool I look. If it's single player, I would never pay for a skin. At the prices they charge, I don't buy them in MP either. But I might if they were $1 or less.
Exactly, and that's what opponents to cosmetics don't seem to understand. These serve the same function as fashion in clothing.
I am not opposed to cosmetics.
I am opposed to having to pay more real world money for content that already exists in the game, for everyone, that has no other way of accessing it.
You could, for example, have a cosmetic system that works something like the character creation spore:
Design a bunch of modular elements that can be assembled together in many ways, though bounded by various constraints so they would not break gameplay.
An even simpler version would be ok you unlocked this style of say pants, and it has various ways it can be hemmed or rolles up or dyed or have accessories mounted to it, and there are accompanying in game mechanics for being able to do all that.
Honestly PayDay 2 has a fantastic system for its Masks: Some masks you can only get via certain in game achievements, others from luck of the draw (but its not a paid for loot box). Then the game has other similar ways to handle how you get the items to be able to customize your masks.
PayDay 2 does not have microtransactions.
It does have DLC. This is a far better funding and development model than MTX.
Finally, if your sense of fashion in the real world is that you have to pay more to look good, then you have no real sense of fashion beyond signalling 'Look At Me I Am Cool Because I Bought Expensive Thing'.
That is not a sense of fashion, that is just flaunting your wealth in am ostentatious, crude and immature manner.
An even simpler version would be ok you unlocked this style of say pants, and it has various ways it can be hemmed or rolles up or dyed or have accessories mounted to it, and there are accompanying in game mechanics for being able to do all that.
So is your issue that people who don't pay still have to download the content to see it on other players?
Would you be okay with a certain color of pants that's only accessible through outside purchase of a dye (i.e. one that cannot be traded)? That way other users don't need to download the dye, but they do need to have code on their machines to display that color.
The whole point here is to separate yourself from the unwashed masses, it doesn't matter as much what the character looks like. It's why the whole "blue bubble" vs "green bubble" thing is a thing, it's a separation between "classes" of people in a sense.
It does have DLC. This is a far better funding and development model than MTX.
DLC is the same thing, especially since so many are simply enabling a license for existing content. For example, I can play maps I don't have the DLC for provided the host has it, which means one of two things is happening:
I download the map when I connect, but still can't access it w/o the license to do so
The map is already downloaded (that's how most work) and I just load it up when the host verifies their license
The only difference is where the DLC is purchased (and maybe when the data is downloaded), and many games let you buy the DLC directly through the game. DLC can also be delisted, so what you seem to be asking for is for games w/ MTX to just jump through some extra hoops.
That is not a sense of fashion, that is just flaunting your wealth in am ostentatious, crude and immature manner.
That's what fashion is, and why "fashionable" things are expensive. People don't buy Rolex watches because they work better or look cooler than cheaper options, they buy them because they're expensive and others recognize that they're expensive. These usually have a level of quality to them, but they're rarely more durable or have more utility than cheaper options.
We treat it differently because we give it a different name, but at the end of the day, those fancy stores (MK, Coach, etc) are the "poor people's" designers and a way to flaunt some level of wealth (e.g. my in-laws gave me a ~$400 wallet from Burberry, which was functionally equivalent to other $50 wallets), and rich people do the same but with more private labels. I think I have successfully convinced my inlaws that I feel incredibly uncomfortable with such things (my current wallet cost $15-20, and I like it much better), but they still like buying that crap for themselves, despite being relatively poor (they live in an apartment, I live in a nice house).
It's the same thing, people like to look successful to other people and flaunt what they have. It's why so many rap songs boast about how much money they have, why celebrity awards ceremonies are largely about the fancy designer clothes they're wearing, and why luxury cars are so popular (I see a lot more luxury cars in apartment complexes than my middle to upper-middle class neighborhood). For certain types of people, flaunting wealth is the point, it makes them feel wealthy, even if they're up to their eyeballs in debt. I see exactly the same thing in upper-middle to upper-class neighborhoods, which is why I prefer to stick to the middle-class neighborhoods.
The same exact thing is happening with these games. People like to flaunt wealth, and that comes in a ton of forms.
My issue is that MTX is an exploitative predatory model for designing games and funding game development that essentially always leads to games that are unoriginal, that allows for and incentivizes very toxic social dynamics amongst its players, and that this often leads to many people with either poor impulse control or those susceptible to aforementioned toxic social dynamics will spend /too much/ of their money to the point it seriously negatively impacts their lives.
No, I would not be ok with a certain color being MTX only.
Not sure what you mean by blue bubble vs green bubble, but there are many ways one can seperate themselves from the masses in many games that feature character customization that do not feature MTX.
So, no DLC is not the same thing.
MTX to a large extent works by incremental gradualism in terms of the actual psychology of how it exploits susceptible people.
DLC on the other hand does not do this. Here is an outlined block of content, it usually features many new things in addition to new cosmetics, and usually all those things are not dependent on further microtransactions, but actual game play of some kind.
This is a much more straightforward and much less manipulative way to expand your games content.
While it still is not very common for games in general to allow players to play on maps they do not have, but a friend does, yes you are correct that a few games feature this.
This is irrelevant to the discussion of MTX, though. I do not have total and complete knowledge of all video games, but I have /never/ heard of playable maps as MTX before. Even if such a phenomenon does exist, maps are not usually tied to the player being able to alter gameplay for themselves /specifically/ or to clothing or weapons that /specifically/ are proven to be crucial elements to the toxic amd exploitative dynic that MTX creates.
The closest thing I can think of would be maybe an MMO with a player customizable house that has many things only obtainable via MTX, but I am not aware of a game with such features, and I would be against it anyway. Just make the things obtainable in game.
As to your views on fashion, I mean yes, many tasteless people view fashion only as a way to flaunt wealth.
That is /not/ what fashion actually is though to anyone with an actual sense of creative style.
This is not my area of expertise by any means but try asking actual character art designers what fashion is and how it works.
Different color schemes, styles of clothes, materials can all be mixed and matched, or paired neatly to convey certain elements of a character trying to be portrayed visually.
People who obsess over branded clothing items are nearlt always tasteless and have absolutely no sense of style.
It is entirely possible in many games, with and without microtransactions, to take different individual pieces of clothing amd make a unique look.
As example, though I dislike RockStar's incorporation of a premium currency mechanic that allows for players to pay real world money for in game content, the games both feature a wide array of clothing choices that can be mixed and matched individually to create your own looks for your character.
Or, you can buy a pre made outfit and immediately be laughed at by everyone for spending money on it, because there are now thousands of other clones that look just like you, and its entirely possible to look good without doing this, you just have to put in some effort and actually, you know, have an actual sense of fashion to determine what looks good or conveys what you want your character's appearance to convey, and when you have done this, it will actually be unique to you and your character.
Another example of this would be Cyberpunk 2077.
Its entirely possible to have a wardrobe that both looks good and is also effective in game... and is not just a cookie cutter clone of some faction or other character, but this requires actual work.
Much like how actually looking fashionable in real life does.
Further examples would be countless MMOs and even some more clothing heavy Survival Sims and MilSims at this point. Those games less commonly feature outright MTX, and again its entirely possible to do actual fashion by mixing and matching things until you find a 'look'.
The point of true fashion may be said to convey certain things about yourself or the character via their attire, and the art of it comes in to understanding how styles work, how the human form works, how colors work, how materials work, and then all of this is constrained by other factors such as practicality, affordability, etc.
Its more impressive to pull off a good looking cheap dress than a just as good looking but 20x as expensive one, unless your entire goal is projection of wealth /over/ actually looking good.
Work boots are relatively common and know for being useful in hard physically demanding conditions, so both a construction worker and a soldier may wear different versions of them.
But when a construction worker puts on mil grade knee pads and a scavenged carrier rig, and carries a battered rifle, this conveys a very different character than a standard soldier in BDU does:
We can immediately tell that he is doing this not as his profession and as a rather impromptu affair, that he likely did not plan for this.
I list these examples to attempt to show you how fashion and character appearance is far more than a competition of wealth display: In video games and movies it is very often a means of conveying the character through ways other than what they do or say.
As yet another example I once designed basically Sam Fisher in Arma 3, wearing pants utilitarian enough to be practical, but also conventional enough to look like many civilians. Had a button up dress shirt with plate body armor with PRESS emblazoned on it, shades, no helmet.
DLC on the other hand does not do this. Here is an outlined block of content, it usually features many new things in addition to new cosmetics, and usually all those things are not dependent on further microtransactions, but actual game play of some kind.
That's one form of DLC, sure, but there's no technical reason why MTX couldn't just be transitioned to appear as DLC. For example, you can buy Shark Cards for GTA V as a DLC, and that type of thing would normally be MTX within the game.
MTX is just a special type of DLC that is usually time-limited and is logged in your online account instead of your launcher. That's really it.
I have /never/ heard of playable maps as MTX before
You can buy maps for Risk: Global Domination as an MTX and use them if the host has them. Likewise, you can use any EU4 or CK3 DLC in an MP game if the host has them (only gameplay DLC, not cosmetics like unit packs). It's relatively common for SP games w/ MP mode, but a bit less common to gate maps behind a DLC/MTX for F2P games.
My point is that this is very similar to a cosmetic DLC/MTX. Basically, player A buys the "DLC," and other players can "use" the DLC when they see the player using the cosmetic. That's the same general idea as temporarily "getting" a DLC when joining an MP game. If we make MTX illegal, they'll just call them DLC because on a technical level, it's the same thing.
That said, I don't know of any games with "DLC" cosmetics that are visible but not usable by other players, aside from F2P games w/ MTX. But that's probably because if they're going to go that route, they'll make them time limited instead of permanent like most DLC are, but there's really no technical reason why they can't just make MTX work exactly like DLC (i.e. show up in your launcher under the DLC section). In short, why would they do the more complicated thing if they don't need to?
Thanks for letting me know what the green bubble blue thing is. I have never and will never use an Apple product for many reasons, so, didnt know that.
That being said, yeah, thats another example of an exploitative business decision that has no technical reason for existing whatsoever, and uses peer pressure to get children to waste money, like MTX.
I expanded my post a good bit a couple of times but maybe you missed it: Purchasable premium currency is /also/ a horrible, exploitative practice that is functionally indistinguishable from MTX in almost every way.
The fact that RockStars shark cards and gold for rdr2 are only purchasable on steam in the DLC section does not make premium currency DLC.
DLC is essentially an addon pack, an expansion of the original game with new levels, characters, maps, weapons, equipment, new gameplay modes, etc.
Another way of looking at DLC is that in the old days before it was practical to download more than around 100mbs as a patch, and a game developer wanted to release an expansion pack, they would sell a whole new cd at stores for maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the base game.
Now, for the rest of your comment:
I am not saying that outlawing MTX would be 100% effective. My point is that MTX is /bad/, games that heavily rely on MTX are often bad, that it is exploitative, blah blah blah already wrote everything.
That being said: Your reasoning here is not certainly wrong, but likely not very good. Loot Boxes have been functionally banned after the EU figured out how to precisely define them, and shortly thereafter many games had to alter their mechanics to not explicitly be loot boxes, and these days it is rare for new games to come out that feature them.
Should a law be sufficiently well worded and have the teeth to be enforced, I would say its actually pretty likely that the practice of designing MTX into games could functionally be ended, though of course not totally, not perfectly.
I personally do not care if F2P games with MTX are affected, as being F2P is the equivalent of a crack dealer offering you your first hit free of charge. Enough people get addicted that to the game that its profitable to just sell them new cosmetics.
Further, nearly all F2P MTX games are based around extremely boring, simplistic and repetitive gameplay, which is itself designed to actually be effectively random in terms of your skill level having anything to do with your actual success at the game. Less mature players will believe that they can actually get good at the game by playing it enough, because either they have not played many games before or they basically become addicted to the gameplay loop itself, which is /also/ knowingly designed to be both addictive and rage inducing.
So with F2P MTX you generally get the absolute worst possible situation from the standpoint of a child or a person susceptible to peer pressure or with basically the same personality of a gambling addict.
The technical implementation of MTX just shifting everything over to being outside of the game itself /would actually be a significant success/ from the standpoint of preventing impulse purchases quite literally because it forces the user to undergo more steps before making their purchase.
Another thing that could potentially be done from a legal standpoint is to quite literally make it illegal for a game to allow you to spend more than so much on MTX or Premium currency in a certain amount of time, and/or only allow a purchase every so often, and or display government mandated warning placards in the same vein as cigarettes must display every time you access any in game or out of game market for the game.
These things are all definitely legally and technically possible to implement.
It does not matter what section of some menu has what UI label to a well written law. Such tbings are laughably easy for any competent programmer to alter within at most a month.
What matters is the functional workings of the entire system in its totality, and the precedent for this approach working has, again, already been established by the EU's ban on lootboxes.
exploitative business decision that has no technical reason for existing whatsoever
There is a technical reason, actually. The messages from Android are SMS, whereas the messages from immediate iMessage are encrypted and sent over a different channel.
But the net result is a lot of social pressure.
DLC is essentially an addon pack, an expansion of the original game with new levels, characters, maps, weapons, equipment, new gameplay modes, etc.
It sounds like you're explaining what you want it to be. Some DLC is certainly like that, but quite often it's not. Sometimes you get that kind of content as a MTX. People try to draw a line here, but there really isn't one because it's all convention. Some DLC require a download (e.g. the D part), many do not (i.e. just a DRM check when you launch).
Yeah, in the old days, you'd buy your expansions as a separate product (e.g. Brood War for Starcraft), but these days there's a lot less formality and variety to it.
So if we try to craft some kind of law against MTX, companies will just call them DLC. The only difference is how they're marketed; on a technical level, there's no clear separation between the "good" and the "bad," it comes down to how it's marketed and the value you get. The only clear separation I can think of is things that are time limited (i.e. you can only buy it for the next X days), but that's a practice in pretty much every industry and a practical necessity for copyright law (e.g. music is usually licensed for a set number of years, hence why older GTAs aren't available for purchase).
I'm guessing there's a mechanism to buy DLC from within a game, and if there isn't, game studios would push for that to be created.
worst possible situation from the standpoint of a child or a person susceptible to peer pressure or with basically the same personality of a gambling addict.
I agree children should be protected here because they cannot consent. However, we don't prevent people with gambling addictions from gambling provided they're adults, because they are responsible for their actions even if they suffer from addiction. Adults are expected to take measures to protect themselves, children are not.
So I'm absolutely in favor of banning children from F2P games where profit comes from manipulative practices (either they're being manipulated, or they're being used to manipulate others, both of which are wrong). Maybe that's enough to dramatically reduce these games, maybe it's not, but that's not the goal; the goal is to protect those who cannot consent.
make it illegal for a game to allow you to spend more than so much on MTX or Premium currency in a certain amount of time
That sounds overly restrictive. If I want to buy an expensive item, I would need to make that MTX several times over the course of days in order to get it? Why?
A better solution, imo, is to provide a mechanism for customers to set their own limits so they can self regulate. It would be up to them to decide what that limit is, so they get to decide what they're comfortable with. But they should also be allowed to disable that limit as well, though perhaps with a multi-day waiting period so they don't just disable it while drunk and render the whole thing useless.
Here you are, considering whether it is worth a dollar to show off your fashion to those you compete against and or cooperate with.
This is literally how it starts.
I cannot say with certainty that you in particular will become addicted to buying more and more cosmetics, but I can say with certainty that many, many people do, especially when combined with the feedback loop of peer pressure.
Further, there are many other alternative funding models that would easily allow for lots of in game content to be added to a game, and then you can make it unlockable via achievements or specific missions or something.
Any one who tells you that games /have/ to do microtransactions to exist in some cases is basically nearly always lying. You can prove this easily by saying: What if all these game studios cut the pay of their executives in half or down to 1/10th?
Its not like they need the money, and its not like they usually even make good decisions in terms of game design, when you are talking about larger studios or those beholden to large funding entities for recognizable IP rights, or some new unique graphical technology or something.
MTX is also astonishingly easy to recognize as a deplorable joke from those who have been playing a wide breadth of games for a while.
A phenomenon that originally started in MMOs and has since spread to other genres is this:
When content becomes stale, when gameplay becomes boring due to those who are not good st the game leaving and those who are good basically becoming near god like, these situations often devolve into the game simply becoming a fashion contest.
What this actually means is the game needs something new to keep it interesting, or it needs to be gently put into retirement phase, perhaps open sourcing some server material for the truly dedicated to be able to continue playing it.
What MTX represents, with the knowledge I just outlined, is that you basically have a cookie cutter core game whose general gameplay loop is known to appeal to a certain demographic, but you /know/ the only new real content you can expect is the fashion contest, maybe a broken or OP item or weapon from a patch that will be heavily rebalanced by the next patch.
You can also know the game will never add anything that really radically forces players to re evaluate the way they play it, because that would alienate the core player base.
So, any game that embraces MTX heavily from the get go is thus usually always a very boring game anyway, at least to those who are interested in novel and challenging experiences, and there will be many slight variations of the same game with slightly different art, characters, or gameplay, but usually very similar core mechanics and general experience.
Whats funny about this is /people still play games with microtransactions at all/.
It's complicated.
The game itself can be extremely good, well made, and fun. You can choose not to participate in the MTX stuff.
Kinda wonder what would happen if such a game came out, was insanely popular, but literally nobody bought any MTX in it ever. Obviously a FTP game would just die, but would they take the hint if it was a $60-70 AAA game that also included BS MTX systems?
It's not like MTX is popular. They specifically go after the small percentage of players that get addicted and spend their life savings on that shit.
I game with people who just cannot help themselves and must buy everything. One guy spent nearly a thousand on Overwatch before he was able to walk away.
I just don't even tempt these guys anymore, I only ever play games that don't abuse them. We've enjoyed plenty of Factorio, Valheim, Avorion, Volcanoids, Deep Rock Galactic, etc.. I had to stop playing Vermintide/Darktide with them along with a few others, which has honestly pissed me off.
Now they're all eyeing Helldivers 2 and I'm spooked that the game is going to be MTX hell and we can't touch it, because I've enjoyed a lot of Arrowhead's previous stuff.
This is a perfect example of my above reply to another user:
Multiplayer games with a certain blend of either competitive play, or cooperative play that lends itself to competition amongst the cooperative players as to who is carrying the team vs who is getting the whole team wipe, these kinds of games /are known and understood by game developers/ to cause a toxic social dynamic amongst many of its players that escalates into basically an extremely expensive fashion competition.
This can also be accomplished by basically nailing some niche art style, by being a very popular established brand, or by simply using cartoony graphics and appealing to basically children with poor impulse control.
Its not complicated at all.
Microtransactions are well known to be an extremely effective psychological manipulation technique that is both highly effective against basically a certain market demographic/psychological profile of players (whales), and also when combined with the social dynamics of a certain set of games with certain attributes (which are also designed and targeted through market research and psychological profiling) create an atmosphere of peer pressure that is known to be effective on basically bullying many other players into at least some MTX.
It is a highly predatory and ethically repulsive practice that is done with precision and intent.
You say 'you can choose not to' which is fine from a theoretical perspective of basically a libertarian economist, where you assume that all human beings only make rational decisions that would benefit them and do not have human emotions, desires, you know, psychology.
The fact is there are now many documented cases of people having their lives literally ruined by spending too much money on these things. And I mean documented as in journalism on more extreme, individual cases as well as more comprehensive scientific studies.
Further, many MTX games are also obviously marketed at children with cartoony graphics and other marketing amd stylistic techniques that are, again, market researched to understand their viability in appealing to the demographics that will be most likely to make irresponsible spending decisions.
You claim that MTX is not popular and this basically baffles me as MTX is astoundingly popular in mobile phone games and there have been many popular games in the last few years that have featured MTX.
Case in point to your hypothetical example of a AAA 60 or 70 dollar game with MTX would be the buggy catastrophic mess that was/is Fallout 76.
So there is your answer: Video Gamers in general are highly susceptible to brand loyalty, and will often, very often pay for broken unfinished games, even with MTX, if those games have a sufficiently popular brand.
If we allow this to continue, there will be nothing else.
I can't even respect people defending this, when the glorified fake hats cost orders of magnitude more than a whole-ass game. Five bucks for all of what's new would still be exploitation built on psychological manipulation constantly steering people toward throwing more real money at content that's already visibly on their computer. When it's hundreds of actual dollars, for one stupid thing, how do you not see the wider problem?
This doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is what the entire game is for. It only exists as bait on this hook.
when the glorified fake hats cost orders of magnitude more than a whole-ass game.
This is the exact reason I never bought anything when TF2 introduced this garbage to gaming. The hats, which were the most desirable cosmetics, were (and probably still are) more than it would cost to have the same exact hat made IRL.
I don't know where they come up with the prices for this crap. Even the first micro DLC to come about, Horse Armor for Oblivion, was extremely expensive given the content (2 different models and skins with no actual gameplay value for $5).
Horse armor was 100% above-board, relative to this abuse. It was new content. It was dumb, and solved a problem the devs themselves caused, but you paid for and received a digital purchase. That is never the same thing as paying so your character can say they have something.
If it's already on your computer - charging for it is probably a scam.
I don't really get why this matters that much? If they want to charge ridiculous amounts for stupid cosmetic shit, users don't have to buy it. I've put a couple hundred hours into Apex and Fortnite and have literally spent $0. Best investment I've ever made.
Congratulations on resisting manufactured discontent and weaponized frustration. Even if they never crack you, personally - they'll get a lot of people, and take them for as much as they're worth. Some for thousands upon thousands of dollars. For hats.
The entire industry is becoming infected by this business model. It is the dominant strategy. It's in full-price, major-franchise, single-player games. It's in subscription MMOs. All dismissive excuses have been proven wrong. It's naked greed, on top of whatever money they can already charge. And in pursuit of that, these products are made objectively less enjoyable. They openly employ fear and impatience to provoke irrational decisions. Your enjoyment without paying them is a bug to be fixed.
At this point they must consider you an NPC. A generic inconstant target for paying users to feel superior to. That feeling is the only reason you can throw money at this crap. The entire experience has been engineered to maximize how much better you feel, every time you fork over more money - moderated only by keeping you addicted so you never just leave. The longer they have you padding their servers, the more they can harass you with limited-time offers for shiny nonsense.
Why is that tolerable?
This has become half the industry, by revenue. What part of that is not a horrifying warning of things gone wrong? It's not like the billions in revenue have been great for anyone doing the work, what with investment-drunk publishers slashing studios apart. Turns out when you forecast unlimited revenue, there's no such thing as enough.
You could say society has always been like that, and we as a society have decided it's fine. Advertising as an industry is inherently manipulative, they want to convince you to buy their products, and they'll use whatever strategies they think will work best.
It's the exact same with the video game industry, they've just realized that "in store" advertising works really well. Yes, it's manipulative, but people wouldn't keep buying it if there wasn't a payoff. I think buying digital items is incredibly stupid, but I also think buying trendy clothes and whatnot is also incredibly stupid.
If you think of cosmetics in the same sense as trendy clothes, it makes a lot more sense. It serves the same sense of vanity, and that vanity will always exist regardless of the laws you set. That demand exists whether you like it or not, and that demand will be satisfied as long as there's demand for it.
Don't take this as me saying I approve of the practice (I actively avoid those games on principle), just that I don't think it should be outlawed. I do think we need policy here, but I should be limited to banning loot boxes, unless there's a secondary market, in which case it should be regulated as gambling. There's also an argument for treating F2P games as using F2P players as advertising, and thus banning it for minors unless there's express, documented parental approval (unlikely to happen at scale). The second one is a bit trickier because social media companies have the same business model, and I'm not a fan of giving personal information to SM companies, so there should also be a way to separate that approval from actual identities (i.e. a digital token signed by your state/country authorities that verifies your age and relationship to the minor; should be automated).
I believe there will always be a market for games that respect your time though since there's going to be a very real limit to how many of these there can be at a given time, so at a certain point, building traditional games has more value.
Ah yes, that exemplary industry with no need for regulation: advertising.
Banning specific mechanics will never solve anything. It's all tiny variations on the same abuse. You recognize it's bad enough to become illegal, but think chasing existing forms that feel especially bad will make you any less manipulated. All that's going to accomplish is a focus on smoother needles for more efficient wallet siphons.
The existence of non-abusive games is utterly irrelevant to the problems of escalating and spreading abuse. When I point out this is infecting everything, objections that go 'well only nearly everything' are wildly missing the point. I don't fucking care if that's still a game that doesn't do this, when I condemn a multi-billion-dollar industry for practices you know include criminally abusive exploitation. All I am telling you is that "include" is insufficient.
Yes, it’s manipulative, but people wouldn’t keep buying it if there wasn’t a payoff.
"It makes money so it can't be wrong."
you know include criminally abusive exploitation
I never said this. I never said any of it is or should be illegal, except loot boxes (only illegal because they should be classified as "gambling" and regulated as such) and maybe minors playing F2P games supported by cosmetics (smells like child labor since showing off to F2P players is the main attraction).
I merely said I don't like it, not that it is or should be illegal. I don't have to make everything that I don't like illegal, only things that actually have victims, and someone choosing to buy something stupid doesn't make them a victim unless they were defrauded in how that thing was presented (i.e. false advertising). You're not a victim if something bad happens to you, you're only a victim if you didn't consent.
"Except loot boxes" is you-saying-that. You're even suggesting a partial ban on cosmetics, unbidden. Thanks? Nice to know you understand it's awful, and why it's awful. Not sure why you think it becomes okay when the targets are adults.
Consent means nothing if it's manufactured. Which these systems obviously do, through utterly shameless manipulation, in an environment made-up by the people taking your money. All appearance of value is contrived. The fact you get the worthless geegaw you were cajoled into believing is worth fifty actual dollars doesn't matter. The process is the problem.
“Except loot boxes” is you-saying-that
That's a special case because it's gambling. That's not a comment about MTX in general or addictiveness, but that specific form because it's based on chance and there's no way to recoup your "investment." Anything that's purchased based on chance should have a secondary market to exchange things you don't want.
Adults are capable of consent, so they should be free to make their own decisions.
Consent means nothing if it's manufactured.
I disagree. People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent, and people should be absolutely free to oppose it. I hold that to be a fundamental freedom, because a restriction of that means you're letting someone else decide what's best for you. Nobody has that authority other than the individual themselves.
I make my own decision to avoid such nonsense, but I think it's unjust to forcibly restrict someone else from making a stupid choice, provided they are capable of consent. There are certainly limitations here (e.g. should be illegal to coerce someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol), but those all must reach some standard of foreknowledge.
If there's a law here, it should be refunds if the person was not of sound mind when they made the purchase, so perhaps a mandatory 36-hour window for returns if the user presents reasonable evidence that they were impaired (i.e. if the purchase was made at an irregular time, or the person can show evidence of being under the influence), and if the purchase was of an abnormal amount (i.e. spent hundreds instead of the usual <$10).
People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent
Jesus.
a restriction of that means you’re letting someone else decide what’s best for you.
We ban scams. Identifying and preventing abuses that work is good, actually. Downright necessary. Because it turns out, people are predictably irrational, and some exploitation of that works frighteningly well.
'I want to choose not to get robbed blind' is not compelling.
How do you not hear yourself proposing all this nitpicking legislation? You are staring straight at examples of people being tricked into bullshit... and figure the real problem is a lack of "undo." Nah dude. It's the part where this entire business model is built on tricking people into paying for bullshit.
Tricking them hard enough that they don't regret it is actually commonplace in scams - like already-illegal, selling-a-bridge scams. Some victims get taken for everything, and then come back to the scammers with more money, hoping to try again. Regret is not a meaningful measure of victimization, when human beings will bend over backwards to justify their past decisions. Your brain does it for you.
We ban scams.
Because they're not consensual. A scam (or fraudulent transaction to use actual legal terms) is when you agree on one thing but deliver another. This could be false advertising, or using consent for one purpose (e.g. fix your computer) to so another (clean out their bank account).
That's a very different thing than convincing someone the transaction is a good idea by making the product look enticing or necessary. If you're getting exactly what was promised for the price that was agreed on, it's not a scam.
MTX have nothing to do with scams, you're getting exactly what was advertised and often there's a "try before you buy" setup (i.e. it'll show you what your character looks like with it on).
hoping to try again
Well yeah, because they didn't get what was promised. Whether they think it was a fluke is irrelevant, if you're not getting what was promised, it's a scam.
With MTX, you're getting exactly what was promised, so it's not a scam, it's just a stupid purchase.
When the infomercial promises "a fifty-dollar value!" and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value. Not even if that belief persists. So long as it's not obviously bullshit... you can remain satisfied.
It's still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. "Absolutely," no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. That's how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you don't technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws don't already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses they'd otherwise gladly fall for. Civilization is a series of other people making decisions that limit you. If you want to buy an unsafe house, tough shit. If you want to advertise Russian roulette, tough shit. Knowing the risks is not a universal excuse for risk. Sometimes we just stop problems before they happen.
On some level you recognize this, or else 'regret for being misled' wouldn't be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
When the infomercial promises “a fifty-dollar value!” and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value.
I disagree. It would only be a scam if they normally sell for $10, then they jacked up the price to $50 just before the infomercial just so they could "lower" it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesn't matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I don't endorse it, but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
implication and misdirection are completely ethical
Ethics and law are two completely different things. It may be ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that should also be illegal.
That said, implication and misdirection can constitute a threat. When it comes to something like rape, there is an actual, tangible relationship to account for, as well as the idea of "implied consent" (lack of resistance), which is quite at odds in a market situation where the individual needs to take action to make a poor choice.
IMO, you can't really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking "buy" is very different from not shouting "no" (and potentially running from the house).
If you want to buy an unsafe house,
Then that should be my right. However, I could see authorities preventing me from having children or unaware adults enter the house, because they did not consent to the risk and rightly expect houses they are welcomed into to be up to code.
We should only step in, imo, if an innocent party is at risk. But if they're all consenting adults and there's little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I don't think that interaction should be illegal.
On some level you recognize this, or else ‘regret for being misled’ wouldn’t be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans.
It's more to ensure proper consent. With MTX, for example, the buyer could be under the influence of some drug, and therefore not completely able to consent to that purchase. Or maybe a child got on the account and made the purchase. Or maybe the UX was so poorly designed (e.g. dark patterns) that they didn't realize they were making a purchase. There are so many ways for someone to have not completely consented to a transaction that there should be some way out of it.
However, if the individual fully consents and regrets it later, well, I guess that's a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
protect children
ensure clarity in the purchase agreement
provide a way out if the purchaser did not fully consent
It's not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models "we" feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
I laugh at stuff like this. Mainly because people actually buy this dumb shit.
Fucking respawn. They were the chosen ones. They were supposed to save us from the micro transactions, not join them.
I wouldn't call these "micro" anymore lol.
Micro content; macro price.
Not to say I'm not disappointed with respawn, but they handed over Apex development/maintenance to another studio in 2020
The only person I knew that really loved and still loves Apex to this day is the one crypto-bro I was unfortunate enough to have to deal with.
I only started playing apex when the new season started because ea doesn't want to let me plat titanfall 2 anymore.
The game is honestly really fun. But holy shit, people should really stop spending money on it.
Lmfao $300+?!
What's funny about this stuff, is Apex Legends developers more than likely gets paid to include this cross promotional material in their game, then they turn around and sell it to players. Really this is all just an ad, and if you pay for an ad you're an idiot.
The big price tag is part of the ad! That's how you get mentioned and people speak about it.
Some idiots will also buy it, so there's that, too.
I actually don't care if a free to play game has cosmetics you can buy. They need to make some money some how. As long as you don't get a real advantage by paying money.
I also don't mind being able to purchase cosmetic, non-gameplay affecting items. But I have always felt the prices are wack as fuck, even back when Horse Armor dropped. A skin should not be more than $1, IMO. Especially skins that are nothing more than a color swap.
Or you could mod the game, you know.
I'm not paying so I can see the skin. I'm paying so everyone else can see how cool I look. If it's single player, I would never pay for a skin. At the prices they charge, I don't buy them in MP either. But I might if they were $1 or less.
Exactly, and that's what opponents to cosmetics don't seem to understand. These serve the same function as fashion in clothing.
I am not opposed to cosmetics.
I am opposed to having to pay more real world money for content that already exists in the game, for everyone, that has no other way of accessing it.
You could, for example, have a cosmetic system that works something like the character creation spore:
Design a bunch of modular elements that can be assembled together in many ways, though bounded by various constraints so they would not break gameplay.
An even simpler version would be ok you unlocked this style of say pants, and it has various ways it can be hemmed or rolles up or dyed or have accessories mounted to it, and there are accompanying in game mechanics for being able to do all that.
Honestly PayDay 2 has a fantastic system for its Masks: Some masks you can only get via certain in game achievements, others from luck of the draw (but its not a paid for loot box). Then the game has other similar ways to handle how you get the items to be able to customize your masks.
PayDay 2 does not have microtransactions.
It does have DLC. This is a far better funding and development model than MTX.
Finally, if your sense of fashion in the real world is that you have to pay more to look good, then you have no real sense of fashion beyond signalling 'Look At Me I Am Cool Because I Bought Expensive Thing'.
That is not a sense of fashion, that is just flaunting your wealth in am ostentatious, crude and immature manner.
So is your issue that people who don't pay still have to download the content to see it on other players?
Would you be okay with a certain color of pants that's only accessible through outside purchase of a dye (i.e. one that cannot be traded)? That way other users don't need to download the dye, but they do need to have code on their machines to display that color.
The whole point here is to separate yourself from the unwashed masses, it doesn't matter as much what the character looks like. It's why the whole "blue bubble" vs "green bubble" thing is a thing, it's a separation between "classes" of people in a sense.
DLC is the same thing, especially since so many are simply enabling a license for existing content. For example, I can play maps I don't have the DLC for provided the host has it, which means one of two things is happening:
The only difference is where the DLC is purchased (and maybe when the data is downloaded), and many games let you buy the DLC directly through the game. DLC can also be delisted, so what you seem to be asking for is for games w/ MTX to just jump through some extra hoops.
That's what fashion is, and why "fashionable" things are expensive. People don't buy Rolex watches because they work better or look cooler than cheaper options, they buy them because they're expensive and others recognize that they're expensive. These usually have a level of quality to them, but they're rarely more durable or have more utility than cheaper options.
We treat it differently because we give it a different name, but at the end of the day, those fancy stores (MK, Coach, etc) are the "poor people's" designers and a way to flaunt some level of wealth (e.g. my in-laws gave me a ~$400 wallet from Burberry, which was functionally equivalent to other $50 wallets), and rich people do the same but with more private labels. I think I have successfully convinced my inlaws that I feel incredibly uncomfortable with such things (my current wallet cost $15-20, and I like it much better), but they still like buying that crap for themselves, despite being relatively poor (they live in an apartment, I live in a nice house).
It's the same thing, people like to look successful to other people and flaunt what they have. It's why so many rap songs boast about how much money they have, why celebrity awards ceremonies are largely about the fancy designer clothes they're wearing, and why luxury cars are so popular (I see a lot more luxury cars in apartment complexes than my middle to upper-middle class neighborhood). For certain types of people, flaunting wealth is the point, it makes them feel wealthy, even if they're up to their eyeballs in debt. I see exactly the same thing in upper-middle to upper-class neighborhoods, which is why I prefer to stick to the middle-class neighborhoods.
The same exact thing is happening with these games. People like to flaunt wealth, and that comes in a ton of forms.
My issue is that MTX is an exploitative predatory model for designing games and funding game development that essentially always leads to games that are unoriginal, that allows for and incentivizes very toxic social dynamics amongst its players, and that this often leads to many people with either poor impulse control or those susceptible to aforementioned toxic social dynamics will spend /too much/ of their money to the point it seriously negatively impacts their lives.
No, I would not be ok with a certain color being MTX only.
Not sure what you mean by blue bubble vs green bubble, but there are many ways one can seperate themselves from the masses in many games that feature character customization that do not feature MTX.
So, no DLC is not the same thing.
MTX to a large extent works by incremental gradualism in terms of the actual psychology of how it exploits susceptible people.
DLC on the other hand does not do this. Here is an outlined block of content, it usually features many new things in addition to new cosmetics, and usually all those things are not dependent on further microtransactions, but actual game play of some kind.
This is a much more straightforward and much less manipulative way to expand your games content.
While it still is not very common for games in general to allow players to play on maps they do not have, but a friend does, yes you are correct that a few games feature this.
This is irrelevant to the discussion of MTX, though. I do not have total and complete knowledge of all video games, but I have /never/ heard of playable maps as MTX before. Even if such a phenomenon does exist, maps are not usually tied to the player being able to alter gameplay for themselves /specifically/ or to clothing or weapons that /specifically/ are proven to be crucial elements to the toxic amd exploitative dynic that MTX creates.
The closest thing I can think of would be maybe an MMO with a player customizable house that has many things only obtainable via MTX, but I am not aware of a game with such features, and I would be against it anyway. Just make the things obtainable in game.
As to your views on fashion, I mean yes, many tasteless people view fashion only as a way to flaunt wealth.
That is /not/ what fashion actually is though to anyone with an actual sense of creative style.
This is not my area of expertise by any means but try asking actual character art designers what fashion is and how it works.
Different color schemes, styles of clothes, materials can all be mixed and matched, or paired neatly to convey certain elements of a character trying to be portrayed visually.
People who obsess over branded clothing items are nearlt always tasteless and have absolutely no sense of style.
It is entirely possible in many games, with and without microtransactions, to take different individual pieces of clothing amd make a unique look.
As example, though I dislike RockStar's incorporation of a premium currency mechanic that allows for players to pay real world money for in game content, the games both feature a wide array of clothing choices that can be mixed and matched individually to create your own looks for your character.
Or, you can buy a pre made outfit and immediately be laughed at by everyone for spending money on it, because there are now thousands of other clones that look just like you, and its entirely possible to look good without doing this, you just have to put in some effort and actually, you know, have an actual sense of fashion to determine what looks good or conveys what you want your character's appearance to convey, and when you have done this, it will actually be unique to you and your character.
Another example of this would be Cyberpunk 2077.
Its entirely possible to have a wardrobe that both looks good and is also effective in game... and is not just a cookie cutter clone of some faction or other character, but this requires actual work.
Much like how actually looking fashionable in real life does.
Further examples would be countless MMOs and even some more clothing heavy Survival Sims and MilSims at this point. Those games less commonly feature outright MTX, and again its entirely possible to do actual fashion by mixing and matching things until you find a 'look'.
The point of true fashion may be said to convey certain things about yourself or the character via their attire, and the art of it comes in to understanding how styles work, how the human form works, how colors work, how materials work, and then all of this is constrained by other factors such as practicality, affordability, etc.
Its more impressive to pull off a good looking cheap dress than a just as good looking but 20x as expensive one, unless your entire goal is projection of wealth /over/ actually looking good.
Work boots are relatively common and know for being useful in hard physically demanding conditions, so both a construction worker and a soldier may wear different versions of them.
But when a construction worker puts on mil grade knee pads and a scavenged carrier rig, and carries a battered rifle, this conveys a very different character than a standard soldier in BDU does:
We can immediately tell that he is doing this not as his profession and as a rather impromptu affair, that he likely did not plan for this.
I list these examples to attempt to show you how fashion and character appearance is far more than a competition of wealth display: In video games and movies it is very often a means of conveying the character through ways other than what they do or say.
As yet another example I once designed basically Sam Fisher in Arma 3, wearing pants utilitarian enough to be practical, but also conventional enough to look like many civilians. Had a button up dress shirt with plate body armor with PRESS emblazoned on it, shades, no helmet.
Practical, Fashionable, Mission Appropriate.
And I did not need any MTX to accomplish this.
The Apple messages thing where iMessage users have a different bubble color vs non-iMessage users (read: Android users). Here's a relevant article that discusses the social impact on children.
That's one form of DLC, sure, but there's no technical reason why MTX couldn't just be transitioned to appear as DLC. For example, you can buy Shark Cards for GTA V as a DLC, and that type of thing would normally be MTX within the game.
MTX is just a special type of DLC that is usually time-limited and is logged in your online account instead of your launcher. That's really it.
You can buy maps for Risk: Global Domination as an MTX and use them if the host has them. Likewise, you can use any EU4 or CK3 DLC in an MP game if the host has them (only gameplay DLC, not cosmetics like unit packs). It's relatively common for SP games w/ MP mode, but a bit less common to gate maps behind a DLC/MTX for F2P games.
My point is that this is very similar to a cosmetic DLC/MTX. Basically, player A buys the "DLC," and other players can "use" the DLC when they see the player using the cosmetic. That's the same general idea as temporarily "getting" a DLC when joining an MP game. If we make MTX illegal, they'll just call them DLC because on a technical level, it's the same thing.
That said, I don't know of any games with "DLC" cosmetics that are visible but not usable by other players, aside from F2P games w/ MTX. But that's probably because if they're going to go that route, they'll make them time limited instead of permanent like most DLC are, but there's really no technical reason why they can't just make MTX work exactly like DLC (i.e. show up in your launcher under the DLC section). In short, why would they do the more complicated thing if they don't need to?
Thanks for letting me know what the green bubble blue thing is. I have never and will never use an Apple product for many reasons, so, didnt know that.
That being said, yeah, thats another example of an exploitative business decision that has no technical reason for existing whatsoever, and uses peer pressure to get children to waste money, like MTX.
I expanded my post a good bit a couple of times but maybe you missed it: Purchasable premium currency is /also/ a horrible, exploitative practice that is functionally indistinguishable from MTX in almost every way.
The fact that RockStars shark cards and gold for rdr2 are only purchasable on steam in the DLC section does not make premium currency DLC.
DLC is essentially an addon pack, an expansion of the original game with new levels, characters, maps, weapons, equipment, new gameplay modes, etc.
Another way of looking at DLC is that in the old days before it was practical to download more than around 100mbs as a patch, and a game developer wanted to release an expansion pack, they would sell a whole new cd at stores for maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the base game.
Now, for the rest of your comment:
I am not saying that outlawing MTX would be 100% effective. My point is that MTX is /bad/, games that heavily rely on MTX are often bad, that it is exploitative, blah blah blah already wrote everything.
That being said: Your reasoning here is not certainly wrong, but likely not very good. Loot Boxes have been functionally banned after the EU figured out how to precisely define them, and shortly thereafter many games had to alter their mechanics to not explicitly be loot boxes, and these days it is rare for new games to come out that feature them.
Should a law be sufficiently well worded and have the teeth to be enforced, I would say its actually pretty likely that the practice of designing MTX into games could functionally be ended, though of course not totally, not perfectly.
I personally do not care if F2P games with MTX are affected, as being F2P is the equivalent of a crack dealer offering you your first hit free of charge. Enough people get addicted that to the game that its profitable to just sell them new cosmetics.
Further, nearly all F2P MTX games are based around extremely boring, simplistic and repetitive gameplay, which is itself designed to actually be effectively random in terms of your skill level having anything to do with your actual success at the game. Less mature players will believe that they can actually get good at the game by playing it enough, because either they have not played many games before or they basically become addicted to the gameplay loop itself, which is /also/ knowingly designed to be both addictive and rage inducing.
So with F2P MTX you generally get the absolute worst possible situation from the standpoint of a child or a person susceptible to peer pressure or with basically the same personality of a gambling addict.
The technical implementation of MTX just shifting everything over to being outside of the game itself /would actually be a significant success/ from the standpoint of preventing impulse purchases quite literally because it forces the user to undergo more steps before making their purchase.
Another thing that could potentially be done from a legal standpoint is to quite literally make it illegal for a game to allow you to spend more than so much on MTX or Premium currency in a certain amount of time, and/or only allow a purchase every so often, and or display government mandated warning placards in the same vein as cigarettes must display every time you access any in game or out of game market for the game.
These things are all definitely legally and technically possible to implement.
It does not matter what section of some menu has what UI label to a well written law. Such tbings are laughably easy for any competent programmer to alter within at most a month.
What matters is the functional workings of the entire system in its totality, and the precedent for this approach working has, again, already been established by the EU's ban on lootboxes.
There is a technical reason, actually. The messages from Android are SMS, whereas the messages from immediate iMessage are encrypted and sent over a different channel.
But the net result is a lot of social pressure.
It sounds like you're explaining what you want it to be. Some DLC is certainly like that, but quite often it's not. Sometimes you get that kind of content as a MTX. People try to draw a line here, but there really isn't one because it's all convention. Some DLC require a download (e.g. the D part), many do not (i.e. just a DRM check when you launch).
Yeah, in the old days, you'd buy your expansions as a separate product (e.g. Brood War for Starcraft), but these days there's a lot less formality and variety to it.
So if we try to craft some kind of law against MTX, companies will just call them DLC. The only difference is how they're marketed; on a technical level, there's no clear separation between the "good" and the "bad," it comes down to how it's marketed and the value you get. The only clear separation I can think of is things that are time limited (i.e. you can only buy it for the next X days), but that's a practice in pretty much every industry and a practical necessity for copyright law (e.g. music is usually licensed for a set number of years, hence why older GTAs aren't available for purchase).
I'm guessing there's a mechanism to buy DLC from within a game, and if there isn't, game studios would push for that to be created.
I agree children should be protected here because they cannot consent. However, we don't prevent people with gambling addictions from gambling provided they're adults, because they are responsible for their actions even if they suffer from addiction. Adults are expected to take measures to protect themselves, children are not.
So I'm absolutely in favor of banning children from F2P games where profit comes from manipulative practices (either they're being manipulated, or they're being used to manipulate others, both of which are wrong). Maybe that's enough to dramatically reduce these games, maybe it's not, but that's not the goal; the goal is to protect those who cannot consent.
That sounds overly restrictive. If I want to buy an expensive item, I would need to make that MTX several times over the course of days in order to get it? Why?
A better solution, imo, is to provide a mechanism for customers to set their own limits so they can self regulate. It would be up to them to decide what that limit is, so they get to decide what they're comfortable with. But they should also be allowed to disable that limit as well, though perhaps with a multi-day waiting period so they don't just disable it while drunk and render the whole thing useless.
Yes, thats the point.
Here you are, considering whether it is worth a dollar to show off your fashion to those you compete against and or cooperate with.
This is literally how it starts.
I cannot say with certainty that you in particular will become addicted to buying more and more cosmetics, but I can say with certainty that many, many people do, especially when combined with the feedback loop of peer pressure.
Further, there are many other alternative funding models that would easily allow for lots of in game content to be added to a game, and then you can make it unlockable via achievements or specific missions or something.
Any one who tells you that games /have/ to do microtransactions to exist in some cases is basically nearly always lying. You can prove this easily by saying: What if all these game studios cut the pay of their executives in half or down to 1/10th?
Its not like they need the money, and its not like they usually even make good decisions in terms of game design, when you are talking about larger studios or those beholden to large funding entities for recognizable IP rights, or some new unique graphical technology or something.
MTX is also astonishingly easy to recognize as a deplorable joke from those who have been playing a wide breadth of games for a while.
A phenomenon that originally started in MMOs and has since spread to other genres is this:
When content becomes stale, when gameplay becomes boring due to those who are not good st the game leaving and those who are good basically becoming near god like, these situations often devolve into the game simply becoming a fashion contest.
What this actually means is the game needs something new to keep it interesting, or it needs to be gently put into retirement phase, perhaps open sourcing some server material for the truly dedicated to be able to continue playing it.
What MTX represents, with the knowledge I just outlined, is that you basically have a cookie cutter core game whose general gameplay loop is known to appeal to a certain demographic, but you /know/ the only new real content you can expect is the fashion contest, maybe a broken or OP item or weapon from a patch that will be heavily rebalanced by the next patch.
You can also know the game will never add anything that really radically forces players to re evaluate the way they play it, because that would alienate the core player base.
So, any game that embraces MTX heavily from the get go is thus usually always a very boring game anyway, at least to those who are interested in novel and challenging experiences, and there will be many slight variations of the same game with slightly different art, characters, or gameplay, but usually very similar core mechanics and general experience.
Whats funny about this is /people still play games with microtransactions at all/.
It's complicated.
The game itself can be extremely good, well made, and fun. You can choose not to participate in the MTX stuff.
Kinda wonder what would happen if such a game came out, was insanely popular, but literally nobody bought any MTX in it ever. Obviously a FTP game would just die, but would they take the hint if it was a $60-70 AAA game that also included BS MTX systems?
It's not like MTX is popular. They specifically go after the small percentage of players that get addicted and spend their life savings on that shit.
I game with people who just cannot help themselves and must buy everything. One guy spent nearly a thousand on Overwatch before he was able to walk away.
I just don't even tempt these guys anymore, I only ever play games that don't abuse them. We've enjoyed plenty of Factorio, Valheim, Avorion, Volcanoids, Deep Rock Galactic, etc.. I had to stop playing Vermintide/Darktide with them along with a few others, which has honestly pissed me off.
Now they're all eyeing Helldivers 2 and I'm spooked that the game is going to be MTX hell and we can't touch it, because I've enjoyed a lot of Arrowhead's previous stuff.
This is a perfect example of my above reply to another user:
Multiplayer games with a certain blend of either competitive play, or cooperative play that lends itself to competition amongst the cooperative players as to who is carrying the team vs who is getting the whole team wipe, these kinds of games /are known and understood by game developers/ to cause a toxic social dynamic amongst many of its players that escalates into basically an extremely expensive fashion competition.
This can also be accomplished by basically nailing some niche art style, by being a very popular established brand, or by simply using cartoony graphics and appealing to basically children with poor impulse control.
Its not complicated at all.
Microtransactions are well known to be an extremely effective psychological manipulation technique that is both highly effective against basically a certain market demographic/psychological profile of players (whales), and also when combined with the social dynamics of a certain set of games with certain attributes (which are also designed and targeted through market research and psychological profiling) create an atmosphere of peer pressure that is known to be effective on basically bullying many other players into at least some MTX.
It is a highly predatory and ethically repulsive practice that is done with precision and intent.
You say 'you can choose not to' which is fine from a theoretical perspective of basically a libertarian economist, where you assume that all human beings only make rational decisions that would benefit them and do not have human emotions, desires, you know, psychology.
The fact is there are now many documented cases of people having their lives literally ruined by spending too much money on these things. And I mean documented as in journalism on more extreme, individual cases as well as more comprehensive scientific studies.
Further, many MTX games are also obviously marketed at children with cartoony graphics and other marketing amd stylistic techniques that are, again, market researched to understand their viability in appealing to the demographics that will be most likely to make irresponsible spending decisions.
You claim that MTX is not popular and this basically baffles me as MTX is astoundingly popular in mobile phone games and there have been many popular games in the last few years that have featured MTX.
Case in point to your hypothetical example of a AAA 60 or 70 dollar game with MTX would be the buggy catastrophic mess that was/is Fallout 76.
So there is your answer: Video Gamers in general are highly susceptible to brand loyalty, and will often, very often pay for broken unfinished games, even with MTX, if those games have a sufficiently popular brand.
Only legislation will stop this.
If we allow this to continue, there will be nothing else.
I can't even respect people defending this, when the glorified fake hats cost orders of magnitude more than a whole-ass game. Five bucks for all of what's new would still be exploitation built on psychological manipulation constantly steering people toward throwing more real money at content that's already visibly on their computer. When it's hundreds of actual dollars, for one stupid thing, how do you not see the wider problem?
This doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is what the entire game is for. It only exists as bait on this hook.
This is the exact reason I never bought anything when TF2 introduced this garbage to gaming. The hats, which were the most desirable cosmetics, were (and probably still are) more than it would cost to have the same exact hat made IRL.
I don't know where they come up with the prices for this crap. Even the first micro DLC to come about, Horse Armor for Oblivion, was extremely expensive given the content (2 different models and skins with no actual gameplay value for $5).
Horse armor was 100% above-board, relative to this abuse. It was new content. It was dumb, and solved a problem the devs themselves caused, but you paid for and received a digital purchase. That is never the same thing as paying so your character can say they have something.
If it's already on your computer - charging for it is probably a scam.
I don't really get why this matters that much? If they want to charge ridiculous amounts for stupid cosmetic shit, users don't have to buy it. I've put a couple hundred hours into Apex and Fortnite and have literally spent $0. Best investment I've ever made.
Congratulations on resisting manufactured discontent and weaponized frustration. Even if they never crack you, personally - they'll get a lot of people, and take them for as much as they're worth. Some for thousands upon thousands of dollars. For hats.
The entire industry is becoming infected by this business model. It is the dominant strategy. It's in full-price, major-franchise, single-player games. It's in subscription MMOs. All dismissive excuses have been proven wrong. It's naked greed, on top of whatever money they can already charge. And in pursuit of that, these products are made objectively less enjoyable. They openly employ fear and impatience to provoke irrational decisions. Your enjoyment without paying them is a bug to be fixed.
At this point they must consider you an NPC. A generic inconstant target for paying users to feel superior to. That feeling is the only reason you can throw money at this crap. The entire experience has been engineered to maximize how much better you feel, every time you fork over more money - moderated only by keeping you addicted so you never just leave. The longer they have you padding their servers, the more they can harass you with limited-time offers for shiny nonsense.
Why is that tolerable?
This has become half the industry, by revenue. What part of that is not a horrifying warning of things gone wrong? It's not like the billions in revenue have been great for anyone doing the work, what with investment-drunk publishers slashing studios apart. Turns out when you forecast unlimited revenue, there's no such thing as enough.
You could say society has always been like that, and we as a society have decided it's fine. Advertising as an industry is inherently manipulative, they want to convince you to buy their products, and they'll use whatever strategies they think will work best.
It's the exact same with the video game industry, they've just realized that "in store" advertising works really well. Yes, it's manipulative, but people wouldn't keep buying it if there wasn't a payoff. I think buying digital items is incredibly stupid, but I also think buying trendy clothes and whatnot is also incredibly stupid.
If you think of cosmetics in the same sense as trendy clothes, it makes a lot more sense. It serves the same sense of vanity, and that vanity will always exist regardless of the laws you set. That demand exists whether you like it or not, and that demand will be satisfied as long as there's demand for it.
Don't take this as me saying I approve of the practice (I actively avoid those games on principle), just that I don't think it should be outlawed. I do think we need policy here, but I should be limited to banning loot boxes, unless there's a secondary market, in which case it should be regulated as gambling. There's also an argument for treating F2P games as using F2P players as advertising, and thus banning it for minors unless there's express, documented parental approval (unlikely to happen at scale). The second one is a bit trickier because social media companies have the same business model, and I'm not a fan of giving personal information to SM companies, so there should also be a way to separate that approval from actual identities (i.e. a digital token signed by your state/country authorities that verifies your age and relationship to the minor; should be automated).
I believe there will always be a market for games that respect your time though since there's going to be a very real limit to how many of these there can be at a given time, so at a certain point, building traditional games has more value.
Ah yes, that exemplary industry with no need for regulation: advertising.
Banning specific mechanics will never solve anything. It's all tiny variations on the same abuse. You recognize it's bad enough to become illegal, but think chasing existing forms that feel especially bad will make you any less manipulated. All that's going to accomplish is a focus on smoother needles for more efficient wallet siphons.
The existence of non-abusive games is utterly irrelevant to the problems of escalating and spreading abuse. When I point out this is infecting everything, objections that go 'well only nearly everything' are wildly missing the point. I don't fucking care if that's still a game that doesn't do this, when I condemn a multi-billion-dollar industry for practices you know include criminally abusive exploitation. All I am telling you is that "include" is insufficient.
"It makes money so it can't be wrong."
I never said this. I never said any of it is or should be illegal, except loot boxes (only illegal because they should be classified as "gambling" and regulated as such) and maybe minors playing F2P games supported by cosmetics (smells like child labor since showing off to F2P players is the main attraction).
I merely said I don't like it, not that it is or should be illegal. I don't have to make everything that I don't like illegal, only things that actually have victims, and someone choosing to buy something stupid doesn't make them a victim unless they were defrauded in how that thing was presented (i.e. false advertising). You're not a victim if something bad happens to you, you're only a victim if you didn't consent.
"Except loot boxes" is you-saying-that. You're even suggesting a partial ban on cosmetics, unbidden. Thanks? Nice to know you understand it's awful, and why it's awful. Not sure why you think it becomes okay when the targets are adults.
Consent means nothing if it's manufactured. Which these systems obviously do, through utterly shameless manipulation, in an environment made-up by the people taking your money. All appearance of value is contrived. The fact you get the worthless geegaw you were cajoled into believing is worth fifty actual dollars doesn't matter. The process is the problem.
That's a special case because it's gambling. That's not a comment about MTX in general or addictiveness, but that specific form because it's based on chance and there's no way to recoup your "investment." Anything that's purchased based on chance should have a secondary market to exchange things you don't want.
Adults are capable of consent, so they should be free to make their own decisions.
I disagree. People should be absolutely free to attempt to manufacture consent, and people should be absolutely free to oppose it. I hold that to be a fundamental freedom, because a restriction of that means you're letting someone else decide what's best for you. Nobody has that authority other than the individual themselves.
I make my own decision to avoid such nonsense, but I think it's unjust to forcibly restrict someone else from making a stupid choice, provided they are capable of consent. There are certainly limitations here (e.g. should be illegal to coerce someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol), but those all must reach some standard of foreknowledge.
If there's a law here, it should be refunds if the person was not of sound mind when they made the purchase, so perhaps a mandatory 36-hour window for returns if the user presents reasonable evidence that they were impaired (i.e. if the purchase was made at an irregular time, or the person can show evidence of being under the influence), and if the purchase was of an abnormal amount (i.e. spent hundreds instead of the usual <$10).
Jesus.
We ban scams. Identifying and preventing abuses that work is good, actually. Downright necessary. Because it turns out, people are predictably irrational, and some exploitation of that works frighteningly well.
'I want to choose not to get robbed blind' is not compelling.
How do you not hear yourself proposing all this nitpicking legislation? You are staring straight at examples of people being tricked into bullshit... and figure the real problem is a lack of "undo." Nah dude. It's the part where this entire business model is built on tricking people into paying for bullshit.
Tricking them hard enough that they don't regret it is actually commonplace in scams - like already-illegal, selling-a-bridge scams. Some victims get taken for everything, and then come back to the scammers with more money, hoping to try again. Regret is not a meaningful measure of victimization, when human beings will bend over backwards to justify their past decisions. Your brain does it for you.
Because they're not consensual. A scam (or fraudulent transaction to use actual legal terms) is when you agree on one thing but deliver another. This could be false advertising, or using consent for one purpose (e.g. fix your computer) to so another (clean out their bank account).
That's a very different thing than convincing someone the transaction is a good idea by making the product look enticing or necessary. If you're getting exactly what was promised for the price that was agreed on, it's not a scam.
MTX have nothing to do with scams, you're getting exactly what was advertised and often there's a "try before you buy" setup (i.e. it'll show you what your character looks like with it on).
Well yeah, because they didn't get what was promised. Whether they think it was a fluke is irrelevant, if you're not getting what was promised, it's a scam.
With MTX, you're getting exactly what was promised, so it's not a scam, it's just a stupid purchase.
When the infomercial promises "a fifty-dollar value!" and delivers the two-dollar pan you paid thirty dollars for, you were still scammed. Belief in value is not value or proof of value. Not even if that belief persists. So long as it's not obviously bullshit... you can remain satisfied.
It's still bullshit.
You, personally, endorse that bullshit. "Absolutely," no less. Corporations should be totally free to harass and manipulate people into saying yes. That's how consent works in the bedroom, right? So long as you don't technically make threats or tell lies, implication and misdirection are completely ethical. If existing laws don't already ban something new - it must be fine.
I reiterate: Jesus.
We can, should, do, and must protect people from outright abuses they'd otherwise gladly fall for. Civilization is a series of other people making decisions that limit you. If you want to buy an unsafe house, tough shit. If you want to advertise Russian roulette, tough shit. Knowing the risks is not a universal excuse for risk. Sometimes we just stop problems before they happen.
On some level you recognize this, or else 'regret for being misled' wouldn't be among your several suggested reasons for partial bans. Not even you can take the absolute stance seriously.
I disagree. It would only be a scam if they normally sell for $10, then they jacked up the price to $50 just before the infomercial just so they could "lower" it to $30. But if the item is normally $50, it really doesn't matter what it costs them to make, what matters is if the product performs as advertised.
And no, I don't endorse it, but merely accept it as a part of a free market.
Ethics and law are two completely different things. It may be ethical to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that should also be illegal.
That said, implication and misdirection can constitute a threat. When it comes to something like rape, there is an actual, tangible relationship to account for, as well as the idea of "implied consent" (lack of resistance), which is quite at odds in a market situation where the individual needs to take action to make a poor choice.
IMO, you can't really be a victim if you consented and took action in making a decision. Clicking "buy" is very different from not shouting "no" (and potentially running from the house).
Then that should be my right. However, I could see authorities preventing me from having children or unaware adults enter the house, because they did not consent to the risk and rightly expect houses they are welcomed into to be up to code.
We should only step in, imo, if an innocent party is at risk. But if they're all consenting adults and there's little to no risk to innocent bystanders, I don't think that interaction should be illegal.
It's more to ensure proper consent. With MTX, for example, the buyer could be under the influence of some drug, and therefore not completely able to consent to that purchase. Or maybe a child got on the account and made the purchase. Or maybe the UX was so poorly designed (e.g. dark patterns) that they didn't realize they were making a purchase. There are so many ways for someone to have not completely consented to a transaction that there should be some way out of it.
However, if the individual fully consents and regrets it later, well, I guess that's a learning experience.
The role of government here is to:
It's not to prevent people from making stupid choices or to destroy business models "we" feel are bad for society. It should be focused on ensuring consent between two parties.
I laugh at stuff like this. Mainly because people actually buy this dumb shit.
Fucking respawn. They were the chosen ones. They were supposed to save us from the micro transactions, not join them.
I wouldn't call these "micro" anymore lol.
Micro content; macro price.
Not to say I'm not disappointed with respawn, but they handed over Apex development/maintenance to another studio in 2020
The only person I knew that really loved and still loves Apex to this day is the one crypto-bro I was unfortunate enough to have to deal with.
I only started playing apex when the new season started because ea doesn't want to let me plat titanfall 2 anymore.
The game is honestly really fun. But holy shit, people should really stop spending money on it.