FA+
Shop
The dark truth about the gaming industry
6 years ago
General
Doom Eternal launches on March 20th, and to say I'm excited about it would be an understatement (let my pre-order speak for itself).
Now, we all know that microtransactions have a bad rep for being implemented distastefully (ie. games being made grind-y so players have no choice but to buy boosters, randomized loot boxes, etc). Hugo Martin, the creative director for Doom, in light of the micro-transactions scare has gone on record in saying that there will be no micro-transactions in Doom Eternal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bw65h8yeXI
Now, I'm not saying Hugo "Fucking" Martin is a liar. In fact, I firmly believe that he believes in what he's doing and that he means well. He has not proven to be untrustworthy. It's just, well, the brutal truth is that game companies need all the money they can get to survive in this environment, and the developers have very little power over their publishers.
We applaud developers when they go against the status quo. And while I myself find it commendable, they unfortunately can't speak for their own games unless they are the publisher. For that matter, we all know that Bethesda publishes id Software's games. With all this added together, it inherently does not look good. And I get it; games that have micro-transactions 70% of the time are grindy to the point of boredom, and they often have randomized loot box-like systems to keep the player invested. On top of that, they often include items that alter the game in a small, but major way.
Hear me out: what I just explained are distasteful ways of implementing micro-transactions. There is in fact a more tasteful way of implementing them, and it doesn't have to alter the game! Case and point, cosmetics. A lot of us enjoy tweaking things to our liking, right? I get that some of us don't, but there is a larger group of people that do. That's an easy way of making extra money without irking your players, imo. Or, instead of implementing micro-transactions, put some time into developing DLC that adds to the story of your game.
I know I sound like I'm trying to justify micro-transactions in big, full-priced AAA games. After I had an enlightening conversation with someone in the game industry, I just don't know what to believe in anymore. The bottom line is if you want your favorite franchise to march on and potentially get better, and if you have no problem spending a little extra cash, just shell out some more money to them. Just don't forget to critique a game where you see fit, because they're going to need all the feedback they can get.
Randomized loot box systems and game-altering micro-transactions can still go to hell.
Now, we all know that microtransactions have a bad rep for being implemented distastefully (ie. games being made grind-y so players have no choice but to buy boosters, randomized loot boxes, etc). Hugo Martin, the creative director for Doom, in light of the micro-transactions scare has gone on record in saying that there will be no micro-transactions in Doom Eternal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bw65h8yeXI
Now, I'm not saying Hugo "Fucking" Martin is a liar. In fact, I firmly believe that he believes in what he's doing and that he means well. He has not proven to be untrustworthy. It's just, well, the brutal truth is that game companies need all the money they can get to survive in this environment, and the developers have very little power over their publishers.
We applaud developers when they go against the status quo. And while I myself find it commendable, they unfortunately can't speak for their own games unless they are the publisher. For that matter, we all know that Bethesda publishes id Software's games. With all this added together, it inherently does not look good. And I get it; games that have micro-transactions 70% of the time are grindy to the point of boredom, and they often have randomized loot box-like systems to keep the player invested. On top of that, they often include items that alter the game in a small, but major way.
Hear me out: what I just explained are distasteful ways of implementing micro-transactions. There is in fact a more tasteful way of implementing them, and it doesn't have to alter the game! Case and point, cosmetics. A lot of us enjoy tweaking things to our liking, right? I get that some of us don't, but there is a larger group of people that do. That's an easy way of making extra money without irking your players, imo. Or, instead of implementing micro-transactions, put some time into developing DLC that adds to the story of your game.
I know I sound like I'm trying to justify micro-transactions in big, full-priced AAA games. After I had an enlightening conversation with someone in the game industry, I just don't know what to believe in anymore. The bottom line is if you want your favorite franchise to march on and potentially get better, and if you have no problem spending a little extra cash, just shell out some more money to them. Just don't forget to critique a game where you see fit, because they're going to need all the feedback they can get.
Randomized loot box systems and game-altering micro-transactions can still go to hell.
amt96
~amt96
I see what you did there
Bobcatgamer
~bobcatgamer
This is what happened with Beenox, they developed CTR Nitro-Fueled and said there would be no micro transactions. But Activision waited until all the positive reviews were out and then injected their greedy serum into the game.
