Charles-DutkaA large portion of the PSXE readership most likely is not playing Black Ops II multiplayer with any frequency. That's understandable.
But for those of you who haven’t, you will probably not be surprised to hear that in your absence there has been the institution of micro-transaction-like “packs,” which contain a camo / weapon skin, a title and a new reticule. There is another option to open up five new pages of custom slots (which you cannot switch between in-game). They usually run about a dollar.
My question is can we expect to see this continue in Call of Duty: Ghosts ? I am aware Ghosts is being made by Infinity Ward and not Treyach but could Activision be the ones behind the institution of these mini-packs? No doubt it is a seriously profitable proposition. With Activision being a very successful corporation (and one that actually verged on bankruptcy at one time), it's inevitable that they would be happy to accept any added income.
Personally, I'd be thoroughly disappointed to see this continue to a level that seriously effected gameplay. Unfortunately, I would not be much surprised. Taking into account that the PlayStation Plus membership is required along with the Season Pass, which bundles the DLC as well as the option of getting the packs individually; one may think this is enough for the gaming giant. But, who knows? Maybe not.
There is also the fact that the multi-billion-dollar World of Warcraft is seeing a steady decline in subscribers, which means Activision may be looking to defray some of those losses. So, for those of you who care, what do you think? Are you against the micro-transaction format? Will Ghosts be laden with micro-transactions, and if so would that change the way you play or even turn you off the game all together?
yeah this is just fluff – weapon skins and the like – there is no in game advantage to people who put extra cash down and therefore will have no effect in game.
In a moment of weakness im ashamed to say i sold a kidney so i could spend a buck on that groovy red gun camo.
Microtransactions are against my code.
Mine as well…but its not hurting me on this one cause I'll be skipping this AGAIN.
I don't traditionally buy DLC or extra content, but I also don't understand how it's any different from one person spending $60+ dollars on a game, or another spending $60+ on micro-transactions for a free-to-play game. Some games don't offer online, and keeping servers online isn't free for the companies. As far as I am concerned, games like CoD and GTA V that offer online for no additional charge is a "free-to-play" offering to their consumers. Micro-transactions are a great way to keep from charging a separate fee for online play, choose not to use the service, but I'm not so sure this falls under a "gamer code". Most don't care if it's there or not, and most don't care if people use it.
It will be interesting to see what stores in for the next gen with this micro-transactions stuff. Don't like the idea myself, it's sneaky and stupid since we have already have DLC already (just throw in the extra goodies with the DLC) unless it's a f2p game I understand.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 9/19/2013 7:02:46 PM
Would you like to unlock your 12 kill streak reward? $1.50
Wanna use that sniper you unlocked? $1.99
Future of FPS's
yeah but COD isn't doing that – the micro transactions on offer are purely cosmetic sillies that in no way offer any advantage in game (unless you want to blind your opponents with the fluorescent 'cyborg' gun 'camouflage' …)
EA has been big on in-game microtransactions so there's no reason that Activision wouldn't follow suit. It'a chance to make a little extra after the sale. As long as it's purely cosmetic i.e. they're not selling power or offering a competitive advantage, there's nothing to object to. I'll never play the multiplayer so it's all academic to me anyway.
well they are already be as holes with all the DLC over priced selling it wouldn't serpirse me in the slightest if activision were doing this but then again please for everything gud in the world don't but then again they milk everything to the max and further so well idk wat to say but that we are going in an ever so bad direction for the industry as a whole.
happy gaming =)
welcome to the 20th century, every game now has microtransactions!
i really dont mind them as long as there not essential to the experience.
there a much better idea than fragmenting the user base charging 20+ bucks for each map pack released.
id love to see more publishers go the way of free DLC, that way your always going to have a much larger user base than forcing people to pay for said DLC.
theres plenty other areas you can make your money back, than charging for new map packs.
I wasn't surprised to see the Micro-transactions make their debut on a COD…however, it wasn't new. Little Big Planet has been doing it before then, if I recall. I think the MT's appeal to the vanity of players who want to tweak their gun just so (I admit, I paid for the dragon skin…it was cool), but really didn't expand beyond that. Where I draw the line are the games that utilize Micro-Transactions that give players an unfair advantage in games…if they moved to make the annihilator (some stupid fictitious gun) that wipes out players in one shot then I would definitely avoid that title. Sadly, DLC and micro transactions are here to stay as companies try to find different and creative ways to fleece consumers while maintaining their outrageous CEO bonuses.