At a certain point in many games, it becomes borderline required to spend real money to play a game with any sort of efficiency, and those who don't are left in the dust by those who do. Of course there's a tipping point as many longtime Zynga players could tell you. As I mentioned in an earlier article, they're essentially selling cheat codes. This seems like a no-brainer for them because they don't have to develop additional content to sell like with traditional DLC, they're simply offering a faster, easier way to get the items in the game that already exist. Sure, they take a bit of negative press, but so long as the items being sold don't unbalance multiplayer or become required for singleplayer, there's little actual harm being done to the game. Maybe not to the same extent, but enough to make it worth EA's while. And I have a hunch that the same sort of people will somehow justify a similar purchase within a $60 game too. I never understood the mindset of people who spent large amounts of money on an otherwise free game, but they exist in droves.
Microtransactions have kept free to play titles and mobile games afloat and profitable for years now. If it's demonstrated that microtransactions don't work in already pricey games, then we'll see less of them in the future.īut will this happen? I doubt it. But if we want to see the practice fade away, all players have to do collectively is not buy the packages.
As such, it's not necessary to chastise EA for this decision, but it should be recognized as what it is: an experiment.Īs annoying as it is that a company feels like they have the right to charge an extra $50 for content in an already $60 game, they do in fact, have that right. Of course it's not required that the player purchase these items, that would be a huge overreach. If you add up the majority of the packs you can buy, a player could easily spend an additional $40 on the game, $50 if they needed an online pass, which hardly seems like a "microtransaction" at all.
0 kommentar(er)
