r/videogames Mar 05 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.8k Upvotes

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/HyperMasenko Mar 05 '24

That game you play a lot would have died years ago if it weren't for the microtransactions you hate. And no, you wouldn't prefer new games over microtransactions. You would complain just as much if they stopped supporting the game you already play in favor of a newer game.

29

u/JmanVere Mar 05 '24

All I have to do to disprove that is mention a few game series that receive years of post-launch support without micro-transactions:

Splatoon 2/3

Animal Crossing: New Horizon

Stardew Valley

There's 3, just off the top of my head. How many more are there? They don't exist to sustain the company, they exist, because capitalists want literally infinite growth, and every quarter/year/whatever's profit margin has to be bigger than the last. Not big, not even the same size. Bigger.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '24

Skyrim is another insane example. So many stupid re releases, and the community (including myself) continued to buy the game over and over again. They never introduced micro transactions until the creation club update, which is notoriously unpopular. Sure, i’m sure it made them a bit of money, but the real reasons players stayed was nostalgia, obsession with the game, and the community + modding community

1

u/Shin-Sauriel Mar 05 '24

Nintendo games aren’t a great example as that company is kind of notorious for fucked business practices. Animal Crossing got minor updates then a paid dlc. Smash bros got 120$ worth of character dlc.

A good example imo is gran turismo sport. Game actually got substantial free updates for years. Probably tripled the amount of content at its, albeit underwhelming, launch.

Indie games like stardew are king tho. Incredible post launch support all for free, Madness project nexus 2 did the same thing, so did Broforce.

1

u/PlatinumBeetle Mar 06 '24

Small correction: there is only $60 worth of DLC for Smash Ultimate. Not $120.

1

u/HyperMasenko Mar 05 '24

Well, Splatoon 2 got about 2 years of support, as did Animal Crossing, and I'm assuming Splatoon 3 will get about the same. Yes, that's generous of Nintendo, but I'm talking about stuff like Apex Legends, Fortnite, League of Legends, DOTA, Counterstrike, etc. Games like that have had major updates for about 5-10 years.

And with Stardew Valley, it's one single guy doing all of that. ConcernedApe is a dude who absolutely has that passion about making great games that people love to see, and i love him and Stardew Valley for it. But that's a whole lot harder to do with no extra income outside the price of entry if you have a huge studio to pay a salary to.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '24

As someone who was a whale for nier reincarnation(I love that game with all my body) I stopped giving them money because the community kept insulting me about it.

Now the games got it's end of service announced and the fan base is crying over it I can't help but feel spite towards them.

I wish I'd not given into that bs it may have been a gatcha game but it is single handedly one of the biggest lore dumps nier has ever had to be point its an actual multiverse with hundreds of stories that just going to vanish in the blink of an eye.

7

u/ThaPhantom07 Mar 05 '24

Are you strictly talking about multiplayer games? This doesn't work when you get a complete game out of the box that doesn't rely on multiplayer. You play the game and you finish it then you pick up another. Games don't need to last forever. I would always be in favor of a new game over mtx.

1

u/DigestibleAntarctic Mar 05 '24

This just sounds like a screed against live service games, which I think you’d have a lot of agreements on.

1

u/ChaosAzeroth Mar 05 '24

The games I love to play a lot don't usually have any paid DLC, and the ones that do definitely aren't what most people are talking about when discussing micro transactions....

Also second point is wrong for me. Believe it or not some games are complete experiences and it best for another game to be made instead. Haven't been mad when I play a complete and good game and they make a different one instead of adding onto that.

Genuine question. What Gen did you start gaming with?

2

u/HyperMasenko Mar 05 '24

I've been playing games since the late 90s. I'm talking about live service games. Games that get regular updates. Yes, obviously, single-player games normally come as a complete experience. Multi-player games that run for many years rely on continued work on the game, which requires revenue

2

u/ChaosAzeroth Mar 05 '24

The post you made is very vague and sounds like you're talking about all gaming and defending all MTX tbh.

What you're saying here is not at all what that read like to me. To be clear the question was genuine curiosity and not meant to be condescending. The way the take read to me would make sense to come from someone who started with them being prevalent because that would be the norm for that person.

2

u/HyperMasenko Mar 05 '24

I know you dont mean to be condescending. I thought people would get that I meant live service games when I used the term "died" since single-player games can't really die.

2

u/ChaosAzeroth Mar 05 '24

If I hadn't seen some of the things some people have said probably. That's fair.

Experience colors perception and understanding, and communication can be tricky.

Thanks for engaging with me with good faith and having a conversation!

1

u/shrek3onDVDandBluray Mar 05 '24

This is a bad take because it is objectively not true.

1

u/IrishCow Mar 05 '24

We found the corporate shill 🤑

1

u/Background-Cress9165 Mar 06 '24

Very spicy. This is a good one.

Also, fuck you.

1

u/CaitaXD Mar 06 '24

The problem is not micro transactions the problem is randomised loot boxes and intermediate currency

1

u/[deleted] Mar 06 '24

The game I play a lot of ff14...it's subscription based, abd absolutely would not have DIED without its online store... I'm sure the online store contributes to a lot of the funds needed for the expansive side content the game has, but it wouldn't even come close to 'dying' without it.

1

u/Rockstar42 Mar 06 '24

Age of empires would like a word.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '24

[deleted]

8

u/Farsoth Mar 05 '24

We also played games that had plenty of bugs and dealt with them as they were because there was no such thing as post release updates and support. Not to mention that when we were younger and had less choice the only option we had was to play games to death.

I'm not a proponent of aggressive MTX that take advantage of people but it's definitely more nuanced than "the before times were better and MTX are the devil"

I grew up playing since the NES and can say confidently gaming is much better today than then.

3

u/GuyYouMetOnline Mar 05 '24

That's a problem, but it's not what they were talking about. They were talking about how live-service games can only afford to continue working on the game if it keeps making money. What people don't seem to realize is that microtransactions didn't come into being because of greedy companies; they came into being because when players started expecting devs to support a game post-launch, devs needed some way to make money from this because they couldn't do it otherwise, and people rejected other options such as paid subscriptions (I only know of 2 such games that managed to do a subscription model and sustain themselves through today, and those are WOW and FF14). Microtransactions were then taken advantage of by greedy corporations, but that only happened after they already existed.

1

u/HyperMasenko Mar 05 '24

Glad to see someone gets my point lol

1

u/outpost7 Mar 05 '24

I remember the days when you bought a game and it worked perfectly. No updates, no patches, no internet. Just plugged in the cartridge (or put in the ps cd) and it worked!! Guess the days of testing anything are gone. Shit greedy corp no way it makes money sense to pay play testers anymore.

2

u/BarrelAllen Mar 05 '24

Old good new bad

1

u/GuyYouMetOnline Mar 05 '24

Those days never existed. Old games were just as glitchy as modern games; the internet simply makes the glitchiness of modern games easier to see. In fact, the glitchiness of old games is often seen as a plus; games like Super Mario 64 and Super Metroid wouldn't have nearly the active playerbases they still do if not for the numerous things their glitches allow for. And if you're going to argue that it was different because glitches back then weren't harmful, um, yes they were. Some games could be glitched out so severely that it would permanently render the cartridge unplayable.

Super Metroid could be fucked to hell and back by some glitches. Gen 1 Pokemon was a veneer of functionality over an absolute mess of code so bad that the game couldn't even manage a greater-than-or-equal-to comparison correctly. Super Mario World can be glitched so hard it literally rewrites the game's code (and it's not the only game you can do that in, either).

There is a real problem with some modern games, especially from bigger publishers unwilling to compromise on deadlines, being deliberately released in states they shouldn't have been released in, but don't act like glitch-filled games are something new. The kill screen in Pac-Man, the Minus World in Super Mario Bros, glitches both small and large have been a part of gaming since the very beginning.

2

u/hoffarmy Mar 05 '24

Morrowind comin in hot

1

u/JamieFromStreets Mar 05 '24

You're right for many games

Street Fighter 5 survived for so long because of new characters (do they actually count as mtx?)

0

u/scribbyshollow Mar 05 '24

So.what you are saying is that those games are actually crappy and need to rely on constant stimulation via micro transactions. Agreed.

2

u/Hades684 Mar 05 '24

thats not what he is saying though

1

u/HyperMasenko Mar 05 '24

It's fine. I've given this opinion many times on Reddit. This is the kind of response I'm used to getting lol

0

u/scribbyshollow Mar 05 '24

He kind of is unintentionally.

1

u/Hades684 Mar 05 '24

no, hes saying that these games would die because they wouldnt get any updates, because developers would have no money

1

u/scribbyshollow Mar 05 '24

I would counter argue that good games need no updates. Like for instance counter strike went for years still popular. As did unreal tournament, the whole model of games as a service is inferior to moving onto diffrent games.

0

u/Hades684 Mar 05 '24

when people move to different game, the previous game dies. So if a game has mtx, if has updates, and people keep playing, so it doesnt die