Microtransactions in Shmups

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:03 pm

Kiken wrote: Arcade hardware/software isn't intended for personal/home use.

Exactly. I edited my first reply to include "they are made for and sold to arcade operators, who use them to make money" just when Acid King responded.

sfried · Post by **sfried** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:39 pm

FrederikJurk wrote:Continue? INSERT CREDIT. 10...9...8...

That gets me thinking...if full arcade games can be downloaded for FREE, the only exception is that each CREDIT costs 25c in microtransaction.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:16 pm

Acid King wrote:People on here still pay thousands for stuff to play in their home.

I think there are only a few people who'll pay large amounts for a game.
And I'm not one of them.

Acid King wrote:Disregarding that fact, the situations are analogous.

I don't think so.

If I follow your logic there will never be a sequel cause they could have added that to the first game anyway.

The biggest difference though is that even games that might get rereleased will be rereleased because there is a demand for it.
If you make a game and you know you will exploit microtransactions in it you make the game from a whole different viewpoint.
It's completely different to rereleases in almost every aspect of it.

Then lastly, microtransactions wouldn't exist if there was no internet.
So it's just a new way to rip cash out of people's pockets.
If people are stupid enough to take this shit then in a hundred years or so no one will know any better and paying per breath of air could become a reality.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:59 pm

Whan I buy a PCB, I get a physical item. A microtransaction will only unlock data which is already available on the program. Which is usually locked to the computer it's installed to.

I'd dread the day when you have to pay even for the ammo on your ship.

Necronom · Post by **Necronom** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:42 pm

A microtransaction will only unlock data which is already available on the program. Which is usually locked to the computer it's installed to.

Don't have any proof but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Most microtransactions work like a mod or a patch, an extension of content added to your installed main program. Putting stuff in as unlockable by payment is not very wise because it pisses off customers if they find out or even makes the cracked/ripped version (with everything unlocked) the better one.
Like everything somebody wants you to buy microtransactions can make sense or not. Digital distribution has the (theoretical) big advantage that you can override a lot of greedy people who have nothing to do with the development of the game and sell it directly to your customer. Micro transactions in shmups could be used to allow the user a certain degree of customization (shipdesigns, music, soundeffects etc.) which is taken for granted by PC users who are familiar with the mod or freeware scene. You could also sell additional levels or remixed versions of them but as I said, imho it's probably better to do sequel or remake so you don't have to worry about later "extensions" while putting together the main thing.

iatneH · Post by **iatneH** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:55 pm

I'm not sure how the mod/patch will work in such a PvP environment. Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong because I have never played any online game with mods before.

Say player A is running out-of-the-box, and is playing against player B who is using an actual modified software.

The two programs have to interact, won't player A's software freak out when encountering some instruction (from player B) it can't understand because the patch has not been applied to his software?

Gungriffon Geona · Post by **Gungriffon Geona** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:52 pm

pimping out a ship is thoroughly retarded if you plan to spend money on it. however, I may pay if there was an incentive of new levels or whole stories to play through. or even spend a few bucks for a level editor so I could challenge people to take on my insane level designs. fair ammount more understanding that "pimp my ride" bull that's been going on.

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:04 pm

There are games in which this model can't simply work. Like fighters. Can you imagine having to pay for a better version of a fireball?

I doubt this may work with American customers. It may work in Korea and Japan (the mindsets are different, and we all know about people who are addicted to their little online games), but Americans are used more to the monthly subscription that lets them explore and obtain pretty much everything given time.

So it's a no for me. Give me the full game, or don't give me anything. Microtransactions are only bits and pieces of data that I cant' transfer to anyone else, like a PCB or game CD, which are solid objects.

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:53 pm

My, what an intriguing topic!

I think the antithesis of PvP would be Wipeout Pure's extra downloadable material. All of which is free, and none of which contributes to the "advantage" of the player as far as I know. THAT may be the closest a shmup player, particularly a console/handheld player, would want to dabble in "additional" content. Like a software developer could offer 2nd loops or "caravan" modes as they are developed; additional ships w/ different weapons perhaps? Sounds pretty feasible for a homebrew/doujin house to try something like that, actually. But, paying for all that would be very frowned upon in this community.

Edit: No matter how good the game is.

Monk 0 Nuggets · Post by **Monk 0 Nuggets** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:41 am

This whole idea is goofy as all hell. Why would anyone pay for something if you don't get any physical object in return? I don't understand why anyone would do that. I don't even really like the idea of XBLA or Nintendo's VC. Although there is the possibility to play games for fairly cheap. You don't actually get the game, so you can only play it on your console and no where else. Also, if you HD goes wacky, you lose it and can never get it back. I give this idea two thumbs down.

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:39 am

Monk 0 Nuggets wrote:This whole idea is goofy as all hell. Why would anyone pay for something if you don't get any physical object in return? I don't understand why anyone would do that. I don't even really like the idea of XBLA or Nintendo's VC. Although there is the possibility to play games for fairly cheap. You don't actually get the game, so you can only play it on your console and no where else. Also, if you HD goes wacky, you lose it and can never get it back. I give this idea two thumbs down.

I would have to agree with the lack of tangibility. The problem is that when people literally Live their lives in video games like online players do they begin to see these purchased objects as real objects. Shmup players as a whole interact in a different way with our games. We don't live in them we don't treat them as a second reality. They are tests of skill not something that can be explored on an adventure level. These are games ant true games at that. They are not alternate ways of life like some MMORPGs are. Paying for game upgrades/updates flies in the face of the simplistic nature of shmups. I shan't be purchasing any gold hems for my Vic viper. To upgrade a ship would only be a step in admitting you need more gimmicks and firepower than more seasoned players.

Carmen · Post by **Carmen** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:52 am

"We'll be charged per breath sometime in the future..."

Yes, I foresee that. Please don't hasten it by promoting microtransaction shoot-em-ups.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:43 am

Michaelm wrote: I think there are only a few people who'll pay large amounts for a game.
And I'm not one of them.

True, but it's silly to insist that PCBs are only for arcade use when a rather large swath of users on here buy them for use in their home. Not to mention there are probably many people in Japan who purchase them for in home use as well.

I don't think so.

If I follow your logic there will never be a sequel cause they could have added that to the first game anyway.

No, following Ceph's original response to me there wouldn't be rereleases because anything that is added to the game system and is charged extra for should have been "earned" by playing the game. Sequels are different games. Sequels would still exist. Just because Shivering Isles came out doesn't mean there isn't going to be be an Elder Scrolls 5. Black label didn't stop Pink Sweets from being made.

Whan I buy a PCB, I get a physical item. A microtransaction will only unlock data which is already available on the program. Which is usually locked to the computer it's installed to.

Microtransactions are additions to whatever game you are purchasing them for like mods or expansion packs, they're not already in the game. It's not as though you're paying extra to unlock something that was already on the disc. It seems like the biggest objection is that microtransactions aren't "solid objects" just data... data that's on your harddrive or memory card and not on a separate disc. Oh, and you can't give them to someone else or resell them, which seems pointless for stuff that only costs a few dollars.

In the context of the original post, a player vs player environment, it's stupid. In the context of shooters in general, not really. Doing microtransactions for worthless parts for your ship or stuff that doesn't add anything to the game (horse armor) and nickel and diming the player is stupid. On the other hand I see no problem with them selling meaningful additional content (arrange modes, new stages etc) to extend the lives of games.

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:47 am

Shmup players simple REQUIRE a level playing field. When I made my game Gun Ranger X many even told what color scheme they were playing under. This is the level of sameness and equality we require for comparison. If a developer allows for change in the game between players, they aren't calling for an equal playing experience.

*If one player's game is longer via purchased levels then that player has a scoring advantage.

*If one player's game is easier through new ships then the player without the new ships has no way to challenge the other.

*Even things like color changing can have a small visual advantage through increased visibility.

*New powerups and guns for paying players will decimate the scoring system between players.

Please understand that I'm not trying to attack the poster of this thread I'm just saying what I believe to be correct.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:05 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:Shmup players simple REQUIRE a level playing field. When I made my game Gun Ranger X many even told what color scheme they were playing under. This is the level of sameness and equality we require for comparison. If a developer allows for change in the game between players, they aren't calling for an equal playing experience.

*If one player's game is longer via purchased levels then that player has a scoring advantage.

*If one player's game is easier through new ships then the player without the new ships has no way to challenge the other.

*Even things like color changing can have a small visual advantage through increased visibility.

*New powerups and guns for paying players will decimate the scoring system between players.

Please understand that I'm not trying to attack the poster of this thread I'm just saying what I believe to be correct.

If you have a stnadard game that's 5 stages long, and a couple separate extra stage available for purchase 6 months later, it's unlikely that those extra stages would be be added to the end of the game. More likely they'd be standalone stages like Bangaio that would be scored individually. Same with new ships or weapons. Any score boards would assumably be split up.

The Coop · Post by **The Coop** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:07 am

echan00 wrote:Why not? Tell me why

Simple... the concept of micro-transactions is, as Penn and Teller might say, bullshit.

It's bad enough that sports games, racing games and such are getting into this ridiculous concept. Trying to get people to buy the "extra" outfits, stadiums and car parts that used to be included in the finished game just a year or two ago, wreaks of a money making scam. But I'd hate to see shmups get caught up in this blatant practice.

I can understand the idea of adding new things after a game's released, but up until recently, these new things were usually added via patches. They'd give you something extra that might have been intended for the "final" version, but the game makers didn't have time to include it. Or, it may have come to them as an afterthought, and they decided not to hold onto the idea for a potential sequel. Either way, the expended material was free. With MTs, it's simply charging for the freebies you used to get, and holding off on content for the released game, so that a given company can sell it to consumers for more money (how else would companies have MT items ready for download so fast after a given game was released?).

Though I dislike the idea of paying more money every month just to get to play a game I've already paid for (MMORPGs), I can at least understand the concept behind that setup. Running servers and maintaining them costs money, so at least some of the monthly fee can be explained. But MTs? That's just a bullshit money making scheme. Plain and simple.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:14 am

I completely agree. There's a huge difference between
a) selling sequels/updates and
b) deliberately leaving out parts of a game that should have been there in the first place so that more money can be made by selling them separately later on.

This bullshit must be stopped in its tracks. In short: It's wrong. Just say no.

PS.
I really don't want to go into this because the whole concept is fundamentally wrong, just some food for thought: Would the company that sold me that extra weapon (which is really worth nothing because it cost nothing to produce and distribute) buy it back for real money once I decide I don't need it anymore? Of course not.

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:49 am

Carmen wrote:"We'll be charged per breath sometime in the future..."

Yes, I foresee that. Please don't hasten it by promoting microtransaction shoot-em-ups.

Well I understand it might sound a bit overdramatic but just think about stuff that could be done by people out of free will a hundred years ago and are quite mandatory now.
In my country you can only get your salary if you have a bank account.
You can only get a bank account if you have a residence.
And stuff like that.
So in order to get a salary you need a contract with a bank.
Banks are normally big commercial cooperations.
They don't have much to do with politics and everyday life if it wasn't for the politicians to give them that right.
Banks are allowed to hold all new payments you receive for a day or more so they can earn money with it.
Every payment you make will be taken off your account a day before for the same purpose.

With all those things in the back of my mind it suddenly doesn't sound so overdramatic anymore to me.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:19 pm

Oh c'mon, I got some speedups for the blue ship in dodonpachi you can buy off me right now

Necronom · Post by **Necronom** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:03 pm

Why would anyone pay for something if you don't get any physical object in return?

Do you get a physical/solid object when you go to the movies or play games at the arcade?
XBLA or VC gives you the right to use software as long as you want. As far as I know you can redownload if you loose your data - like it or not, digital distribution will get stronger.
Btw, don't want to step on anybody's shoes but talking about solid media while bringing a pcb as an example is kinda funny. A pcb is made to last about five years, after that...well good luck, hope you don't mind fixing stuff. Even your superfly Blu-Ray/DVD-whatever disc doesn't come with any kind of guarantee that it'll last much longer (though it probably will...). That's why the Mame-project is such a blessing although it pisses off arcade owners and game companies (Hello Capcom!) on a regular basis.
Imo, whether something is worth the price or not depends completely on the content and not on the fact whether it's solid or not.

antron · Post by **antron** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:16 pm

How about a microtransaction to start a new topic in this forum!

Necronom · Post by **Necronom** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:31 pm

@antron
Be our guest, it's free...

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:38 pm

antron wrote:How about a microtransaction to start a new topic in this forum!

I strangely sort of like this idea...

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:59 pm

I would'nt mind paying for extra content as long as it's in an add-on pack of some kind. Seriously if some really big Shmup devloper decided that they would make a Vitural Console or Xbox Live! or PS3 Online (sorry don't know the name!) exclusive shmup and then afterwards develop enough content for an "add-on pack" then I would proberbly buy it providing that the price is reasonable.

Yes boo hiss you can say stuff like "yeah well that content should of been there in the first place" but the simple matter of the fact is that devloping extra content takes time and money as well as other resources and idealy I think everyone would like publishers to release this kind of content for free but no publisher could support one product forever with free updates because they will proberbly be making crippling losses hence they would proberbly have to start charging for it.

Another thing people have to consider is that companies have to stick to devlopment time tables hance they may of not been able to of released the content initaly in the first place because it was not ready or what not and some might argue that they should be rewarded for spending the additonal time getting it right and fixing to so that people would enjoy the content and ultimately the more although if they do decide to release it for free then people should be very greatful.

sorry I'll stop the rant now...

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:24 pm

We were not talking about updates or add-ons or sequels but about games designed around the concept of deliberately leaving out certain content in order to sell it separately.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 060#230060

Michaelm · Post by **Michaelm** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:10 pm

Danny wrote:Another thing people have to consider is that companies have to stick to devlopment time tables hance they may of not been able to of released the content initaly in the first place because it was not ready or what not and some might argue that they should be rewarded for spending the additonal time getting it right and fixing to so that people would enjoy the content and ultimately the more although if they do decide to release it for free then people should be very greatful.

So if you get hired to fix a job in a month and you're not ready after that month you should receive your full payment nonetheless and you should get paid extra for the extra time you need to finish the job. Even if it was agreed it would be finished after the 1st month ?

Soldato J · Post by **Soldato J** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:24 pm

I have never, nor will ever pay for any microtransaction.

IMHO it is totally against the spirit of gaming.

It is also part of why I have not ever played (and probably never will either) anything online

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:40 pm

Michaelm wrote:
Danny wrote:Another thing people have to consider is that companies have to stick to devlopment time tables hance they may of not been able to of released the content initaly in the first place because it was not ready or what not and some might argue that they should be rewarded for spending the additonal time getting it right and fixing to so that people would enjoy the content and ultimately the more although if they do decide to release it for free then people should be very greatful.
So if you get hired to fix a job in a month and you're not ready after that month you should receive your full payment nonetheless and you should get paid extra for the extra time you need to finish the job. Even if it was agreed it would be finished after the 1st month ?

I don't make the rules. Most people in the video gaming industry paid in either one of two ways normaly. Some lucky few get a salary every month with job security but very few people get that kind of deal. Most people (oftern lower ranked members) are hired for one job which normaly consists of doing their section of the game before releasing it to the general public. At the end of the day it's up to the company's director if the game get's released and if the production team have not completed everything that the design team have laid out them the director is faced with some options either...

a) Release the game. Depending on the state of the game it will either have enough content or not the company will just leave as it is (after all people won't know what they are missing if it did not exsist to begin with) or fix it with a patch later or if your really devious (like EA) then you'll just release it then fix the problem in next years game.

b) Delay the release. This will annoy the publishers and will reflect badly on the business (bad reputation with publishers means it will be harder to get another one for future games). Not to mention the fact that it will cost the business more money production value wise thanks to increase costs in overheads, wages and promotion and so on.

Normaly when companies release patches they are doing it out of a customer service PR angel. They don't want to be seen as dodgey tradesmen so they fix the product later (perminent members of staff are normaly charged with this sort of duity) while avoiding unessarcary extra publishing and production costs of sorts.

Getting back to your first question though (yes I do babbler on a bit) depends on what payment method your are under really. If you are being paid by the salary (normaly a position of trust in a VG company) then it will reflect badly upon you and you could be demoted or worse, fired. If you are paid by job then you will be required to stay in till it's done and as you can tell video game companies like this sort of payment method more as it motovates lower ranked staff more if you catch my drift.

Saying that if you do manage to finish your job on time the chances of you being imployed again are higher and you may get offered a better salaery or even a perminate position in the company.

sorry I am babbling on again heh... I will stop now...

p.s: speakin of microtransactions did anyone feel totlay ripped off playing Double Dragon 3 in the arcades? I mean the game was bad enough but to obtain weapons you had to go in to the game's shop and pay REAL MONEY for them. Damn give me the orignal were the dredded oil barrels of death were free man!

Soldato J · Post by **Soldato J** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:03 pm

Here's a perfect example of the type of the bullshit microtransactions cause

In the game Dance! online, you must PAY to have black skin.

just------whatever

http://www.destructoid.com/apparently-b ... 1014.phtml

even the unruly TNL kids think this is teh suxxorz

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/show ... hp?t=46644

The Coop · Post by **The Coop** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:49 pm

Danny wrote:Yes boo hiss you can say stuff like "yeah well that content should of been there in the first place" but the simple matter of the fact is that devloping extra content takes time and money as well as other resources and idealy I think everyone would like publishers to release this kind of content for free but no publisher could support one product forever with free updates because they will proberbly be making crippling losses hence they would proberbly have to start charging for it.

I believe companies like Blizzard and Epic Games show otherwise. There are companies who are still making new content, maps, characters and such for their games for free, even years after they were released. Hell, way back when, id and Raven Games released entire episode upgrades for their games for free ("Thy Flesh Consumed" and "Shadow of the Serpent Riders"). If they can do it, so can others. The developing cost excuse by companies is just that... an excuse. It's a means to try and justify charging the consumer more for what has been up to that point, already included in the game, or freely given after the game's release.

Companies large and small have managed to make some great stuff, and release it for free as a patch. Considering the size of companies like EA, Konami, and others that are doing the MT deal, I call their "development cost" excuse complete and utter bullshit. I stand by my original statements.