All Microtransactions are DLC, but not all DLC is a Microtransaction.
"Microtransaction" refers to a sub-category of DLC that is well, micro. An example would be 99¢ for a one use item (many F2P games use this as a crutch, making it difficult to progress without said items, while making them hard to come by during regular play, so people are encouraged to pay & pay again to progress. They have even been used on the 3DS, in a more optional manner, as I believe you can buy some sort of potion in this manner in Bravely Default, but the game never relies on them).
Now, the ethics of Fates' 3 paths being sold seperately, amiibo locked content, and extra map packs aside, they aren't Microtransactions. They are one time payments for something you can use (and often benefit from) time and time again.
Currently Playing:
Switch - Blade Strangers
PS4 - Kingdom Hearts III, Tetris Effect (VR)
@RR529 Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Microtransactions are by their very purpose potentially limitless in nature, to provide a constant source of income for the greedy companies who employ them in their games (many that already cost at least $60 to even posses day 1). If you're selling even hundreds of pieces of DLC in you game, whilst unquestionably a questionable thing in and within itself, you're just selling extra content that the player can buy and download. Hence the term DLC. There is also the physiological manipulation that occurs in many games that use microtransactions, making games more of a grind or more difficult in order to test the players' patience and make them cave in.
Say what you want about Nintendo's DLC practices, the overpriced Smash ones, the Fire Emblem map pack or even amiibo, but they're not microtransactions, not like they are in the Badge Arcade, because it's as deep as the player's wallet. Though the fact that the Badge Arcade is free-to-download makes it far less insidious than the many, many games this gen that have had the nerve to charge $60 up-front only to then employ physiologically manipulate microtransactions to squeeze as much money as they can, often to the detriment of the quality of the game.
Until the day Nintendo do release such a game (I do think it will happen eventually with how well most of these games have done unfortunately) then I have that much more respect for them.
@Socar fair enough, i have all those games but I mainly play single player so those microtransaction goes unnoticed by me. however, mcrotransactions in those games doesn't really affect any gameplay or give any advantages (most are just cosmetics) so i don't really know what your complaining about. Nintendo's Devils Third has worst microtransactions than those games you mentioned
Aren't some re-usable items or bonuses attached to microtransactions? Like increasing max inventory in a mobile game? And cosmetics also tend to stay unlocked.
There just seems to be some pointless splitting of hairs here. I wouldn't consider Birthright / Conquest and Revelations microtransactions, but I would consider the bite-sized maps as such.
To the bolded, you don't directly pay for more inventory space (at least from the five or six F2P titles I've tried, which generally use the same system, regardless of genre).
Rather, there is usually a hard to come by in-game currency (tends to be some sort of crystal) that you use to increase inventory space (or can be used to instantly refill stamina meter, or start of a mission where you left off if you lost, etc.), and this consumable currency is what you actually purchase with the Microtransaction (usually one for 99¢, or in packs for larger amounts of money).
As for cosmetics, you mean like costumes? If so, I've never really considered that sort of thing to be a Microtransaction for the reason that they aren't consumable (which I'd always assumed was the defining trait of the Microtransaction).
Currently Playing:
Switch - Blade Strangers
PS4 - Kingdom Hearts III, Tetris Effect (VR)
@DarthNocturnal: You know, nothing really is going to make people realize that Fates games are individual games on their own and its all because people like you still think of it as a "lazy" move done by Nintendo.
I can say the same for the Game Boy Color where Capcom went lazy to divide the Zelda games as two instead of taking the one game because both the GB and C were able to have games that are larger in size compared to many other games. Yet its accepted over there because you're taking it granted that the technology was limited at the time.
But I'm not saying that for certain. Why? Because they are very large games to their own right and it really isn't a cash grab.
Whether or not it's a direct purchase doesn't seem to matter. And neither does consumable vs not, imo. If you're making a micro payment (what precisely defines "micro" is probably subjective), then it's a microtransaction.
It's all publishers trying to get your money in the end. It's up to the player to decide if a game's given offer is worth it. That goes for a reusable map, weapon, or a single use item.
Quit it with the BS. I said nothing about how it was lazy. It wasn't even a part of my original point (the map packs were). You were the one that mentioned the other two thirds, and gave asinine reasons for why all three couldn't be on one cart. And you were quickly proven just how wrong you are.
The Oracle games were 2001. Different era. If they were released (brand new games, not the VC releases) as they were then in today's gaming environment, they'd probably receive the same skepticism and criticism. Enough space on a cartridge or no, and regardless of whether the price / content ratio was justified to some. We bought into it back then because that was then. We bought into a lot of stuff way back then.
So 20$ is a micro payment? I can understand the small payments of map packs can add as microtransactions but you are getting the wrong image of the meaning.
According to definition, it is a very small financial transaction conducted online. Again, is 20$ small? Nope.
Also, you seem to forget the fact that microtransactions exist so that the companies can make profit on it and sees whether the game can last longer than making a new game after game again. You spend a small amount on an item that will last you for a couple of days after which you have to buy them again if you can't seem to win through natural progress. That's the formula used on phones. Not only does it benefit the companies because you don't need to download content for this but it also means that they can make profit on just one game alone if they do it right.
When you buy something like costumes however, you get to keep it as long as you want. That's downloadable content.
Fates isn't a microtransaction crap like how you state it is. It is simply three individual games that have their own experiences to be enjoyed and it doesn't do anything that forces players to play X to get better at Y and to understand what Z is trying to say. Because the stories as a whole don't really fully flesh out plot details inorder to do so and the games play differently.
You along with the others seem to forget that combining the three games together leads to 70 maps which is the largest it has been for Fire Emblem. Playing Conquest alone for me lasted around 90 hours of playtime.
And for the record, its you who claimed that Fates is also one of the victims of Microtransactions when its clearly not.
I said I DIDN'T consider Birthright / Conquest and Revelations to be microtransactions.
Those maps were created with similar purposes to one-time use microtransactions. They just happen to not vanish once you've used them. And nothing about the word "microtransaction" says anything about how long you keep what you bought. To me at least.
I never used the word "victim". And I havn't "forgotten" anything.
But the way you're saying it sounds like you and others still think that Fates is a cash grab when in reality, more effort was put into it.
Fates doesn't have microtransactions, you pay for content. Microtransactions are normally purchases that can be made more than once, like buying currency or other consumables, or purchasing things that can be unlocked in-game.
A lot of people call other things microtransactions, like having to pay to unlock characters, but that just makes things more confusing. If you are straight paying for content then it is DLC.
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
@DarthNocturnal plenty of F2P games have a $100 option for their microtransactions, which is why focusing on the "micro" part of microtransactions misses the point of people's complaints about microtransactions. Technically anything can be a "micro" transaction, since it depends on what a person deems micro. Someone that makes 2 billion dollars a year could see a Cobsole purchase as a "micro" transaction lol
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played.
I rather play Chronicles over this.
To think that it sold well and is the greatest game ever made.
Nintendo ought to be dominating the gaming market. I don't know why there needs to be any competition here.
I don't see how U think in this matter. Examples on the subject's beginning "I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played." needs to be followed up with valid examples that you can provide based on the experiences that made you say "I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played." Without those valid examples, it makes it seem like you're hating on Final Fantasy Tactics due to it being.....Final Fantasy Tactics. If valid points that are opinion(s) in your matter can be revved up, it would provide back up for others to understand why you said, and I quote "I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played.", but it would also show others that yes, you don't like Final Fantasy Tactics, but I can understand the reasoning why he does not like it, even if the examples that're valid that's revved up is something I disagree with.
I made Sheldon & Mr. Randoms back on Flipnote Hatena, now i'm a kangaroo mod that has a funko pop collection!
I'm not keen politics since that stuff is spooky, I'd rather watch SpongeBob over Fox News anyways!
I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played.
I rather play Chronicles over this.
To think that it sold well and is the greatest game ever made.
Nintendo ought to be dominating the gaming market. I don't know why there needs to be any competition here.
I don't see how U think in this matter. Examples on the subject's beginning "I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played." needs to be followed up with valid examples that you can provide based on the experiences that made you say "I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played." Without those valid examples, it makes it seem like you're hating on Final Fantasy Tactics due to it being.....Final Fantasy Tactics. If valid points that are opinion(s) in your matter can be revved up, it would provide back up for others to understand why you said, and I quote "I hate Final Fantasy Tactics. Worst game I've ever played.", but it would also show others that yes, you don't like Final Fantasy Tactics, but I can understand the reasoning why he does not like it, even if the examples that're valid that's revved up is something I disagree with.
Yeah, so what if I hate the game for just being Final Fantasy Tactics? Its a game that simply slaps the name Final Fantasy there and sells better than all the FE games out there when in reality, its pretty much a copy paste of Tactics ogre only with Final Fantasy title slapped in.
The game itself is lousy with the only good thing being that job system. Broken story, pointless CT implementation, lack of any objective variety and lastly, horrible interface design excluding the battlefield.
Fire Emblem should be the one dominating the TRPG and should be called the holy grail of TRPG simply because there's objective variety, better character development, makes complex maps in favor of making the game mechanics simpler and best of all, has stories that while not probably as epic as Tactic Ogre, are still miles better than FFT.
At this point, third parties can go #$*&%# over Nintendo and raise their ego towards Nintendo because they somehow make games better than Nintendo.
Okami is better than all of the Zelda games. Okami had the perfect balance of exploration and story, a novel and well-integrated feature with the brush arts, and surprisingly fun combat.
P.S. Nothing against Zelda though. I love Zelda to death. I just like Okami more.
"I'll take a potato chip... AND EAT IT!"
Light Yagami, Death Note
"Ah, the Breakfast Club soundtrack! I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff!"
Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 4,801 to 4,820 of 12,251
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic