Anyone who thinks a game with microtransactions isn't designed to push you towards buying them is a fool. And I don't mean only what EA is doing. They affect any game's design when they are present.
Just. Avoid. Them.
Just. Avoid. Them.
Pay 2 win games should absolutely be regulated and be 18+ only.
If cosmetics didn’t matter, why are they such lucrative items to sell? Cosmetics were once the reward for playing the game, not for spending money. And the look of your in-game avatar matters - has always mattered - to a vast majority of players.
The reward for playing the game now? Getting the opportunity to spend more money.
Are you going to put better looking items in the game for free if you could charge $20 in the store? Are you going to spend time writing an engaging and rewarding quest line when you can just throw a price tag on it? Games do need content so they won't do this for everything, but the mere existence of a cash shop and MTX is a perverse incentive on development quality. It also often ruins the cosmetic experience of the rest of us, with knights running around wearing angel wings for some weird reason.
That aside, Jim Sterling brought up something I hadn't even considered since I'm too old. Kids getting bullied because their Fortnite characters only have the default skins and they can't afford (or aren't allowed) to buy anything else. "Only cosmetic" indeed!
An example, Wargaming which runs World of XXX games of which World of Tanks and World of Warships are the biggest tells players of their Warships game that containers can contain one of any one hundred and six premium ships but players noticed patterns and soon determined there was a short list of ships you had to roll first before the rest were available[0]. While they offered a refund after being called out they did not advertise such a refund in game or even on their own site. Duplicate premium ships used to reward the premium currency but that was replaced with another roll last year.
Their World of Tanks sister game operates under more generous rules but that may be more from their primary market is in a different region. Neither publishes odds but a version of the game on consoles does publish its odds because that platform requires it however there is no play against PC
[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/k6ivy5/how...
In other games, you can make progress faster if you pay. That is more annoying, but still no pay to win, or dishonest.
But all those lootbox games and arcade ones, designed to lure you into more buying, well, everybod gets what they deserve.
But who is to say you aren’t being manipulated to buy those microtransactions? Their presence gives designers the wrong incentives.
This is worse when such things as skins end up getting tied to status within the game world. Fortnite doesn't have randomized loot boxes anymore, but that hasn't stopped kids from spending tons on V-bucks, especially since they get bullied if they don't [1]. Seriously, just look at videos of people bullying "defaults" on Fortnite. I think it's especially bad because there is a way to finance long-running multiplayer games: battle passes. It's an upfront cost so you always know what you're getting into.
1: https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/7/18534431/fortnite-rare-defa...
If you're an aesthetics whore, welp.
Well, but thats the beauty of a shooter game. If theres some moron fixed on style trying to bully, you can just shoot him and enjoy his whining. Knowing that cosmetics are no match for skills.
And about spending in general:
I believe that is a valuable skill to be learned as early as possible, don't you think?
So if a kid spends all his pocket money for the month on day 1. There is opportunity to learn.
(and if he spends all his parents money, then there is opportinity for the parents to learn)
But it still means, that people with more time than money get to play the game. And those with more money than time, can take a fast dive here and there.
I've seen that work (more or less) in some games.
Neither do I play pay to win games.
I think one of the Dead Space games was the first EA title to both be full price and have IAPs for materials you could also slooowly grind?
Also Devil May Cry 5.
Actually no, it's not fine. Because if the cosmetic stuff would have been obtainable just through game play, it would have been easier to obtain. If it's available for real money, they have an incentive to make it more grindy to obtain otherwise. Consciously or not.
And if you think the availability of those cosmetic items doesn't affect you - consciously or not - you're deluding yourself.
No matter how they're implemented, microtransactions are a burden on either your wallet or your time.
The vast majority of MTX items in that game are cosmetic, adding new skins to armour, new skill VFX, etc. Some of the MTX is different in that you can purchase more stash tabs (though you get quite a few for free already) but it very much feels like ethical MTX, in as much as this kind of thing can be ethical.
If you're the hypercompetitive type yeah, I guess you don't care. Except you could be competing for the largest skin collection... In any case, a lot of people do care.
Path of Exile and GW2 seems to be sharing microtransactions model - both include account/character upgrades, convenience items and additional more appealing skins. Not sure about PoE but GW2 still allows you to exchange in-game currency for shop currency / gems to gold at I'd say fair rate.
Though there is a meme in the community that when a popular skill gets MTX, it's nerfed next league. They made their sale, and it's time to bring a different skill to the forefront to make way for new MTX. There's definitely a risk of this kind of monetary incentive tainting game design choices.