2019/04/22

The difficulty with voting with your wallet

On a youtube video about review bombing and how it was just about the only way for players to communicate displeasure with developers and publishers, another user talked about why companies did not want to tell about micro-transactions and other impopular elements of games. That it was naturally because just telling would show that we were being ripped off ("burned") and we should vote with our wallets and either not buy or if we already ahd, then stop playing and leave.
I made the following comment.

There is a problem with voting with your wallet. At least if you want another game in the series. There is no certainty that they will make another game in the series. Look at Mass Effect Andromeda. It didn't get good reviews and so didn't get good (enough) sales and now the series might be dead. So, sure it stops you from getting burned again, but it might not get you what you want. Not saying it isn't the best option, just that it might not be a good option.

The user replied that while this is a problem, what can you do as a consumer? If their next game of choice arrives with micro-transaction, they will just have to no buy it. And that in a capitalist world, the only way to show they publishers might be to let franchises die.
They concluded with telling me to feel free to explain to them why DLC and micro-transactions feel like such a ripoff, why a game like Fallout 76 selling for 60$ needs to charge 20$ for a single cosmetic item.

I'm not in any way a fan of overpriced micro-transactions. They argue that the whales keep the price down for the rest. Is this true? I do not know. I know i do not think they are not as bad as buying weapons and the like. (20$ is a rip-off however.)

Part of me wonders if what is needed is for players to do the market research for them. Or even further promise purchases if x, y, z is delivered. ("I promise to buy the game if it is delivered without micro-transactions and on steam."), the other part thinks even this is not something that would work.

You probably have a point in that series need to be allowed to die over including micro-transactions, but it might need to be basically the whole industry. PC, console and mobile.

And i think the last one is most important. Mobile games take less resources to create and is where micro-transactions seem most accepted. Where else would you accept buy more energy? (Or rather buying premium currency to buy energy.) And i don't doubt it leaves companies wondering "Why can't we have that?" And that is the problem, why shouldn't they? If a triple-A game on PC costs tens of millions to produce while a Mobile game costs hundreds of thousands (i can't imagine more), while reaping the profits of continuous micro-transactions, why should publishers want to sell Triple-A PC games without micro-transactions?

It kind of makes you wonder if micro-transaction-less games are the exception over time. When did arcades go out of style?

No comments:

Post a Comment