EPTI'm usually not a fan of microtransactions, but when buying warchests directly support esports, it's not that bad.
WCS 2018 Details Revealed - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zephyp
238 Posts
I'm usually not a fan of microtransactions, but when buying warchests directly support esports, it's not that bad. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On December 21 2017 20:20 Zephyp wrote: https://twitter.com/ApolloSC2/status/943775315934920704 I'm usually not a fan of microtransactions, but when buying warchests directly support esports, it's not that bad. Microtransactions that are purely optional/cosmetic get a bad rep. They're a good way of making games cheaper/supporting esports. It's the pay-to-win and "pay extra if you want a decent experience" games that are the absolute worst | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 22 2017 04:24 Fango wrote: Microtransactions that are purely optional/cosmetic get a bad rep. They're a good way of making games cheaper/supporting esports. It's the pay-to-win and "pay extra if you want a decent experience" games that are the absolute worst Even optional/cosmetic microtransactions do merit the scrutiny applied to them. Some games (not Starcraft II so far) have models of microtransactions which are clearly exploitative, and purely targeted at 'whales'. It's a bit of a grey area, but I don't think that its moral to have a system that tries to incentivizes a very few (some of them children) to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on micro-transactions. It's nice for the general population, and you can argue that it's the responsibility of the person with the money (or their parents) to be able to spend the money responsibly, but the games are still clearly trying to create and feed an addiction. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17178 Posts
any how, 1 way to stop predatory microtransaction policies that create an atmosphere of gambling is to boycott the product. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On December 22 2017 05:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Even optional/cosmetic microtransactions do merit the scrutiny applied to them. Some games (not Starcraft II so far) have models of microtransactions which are clearly exploitative, and purely targeted at 'whales'. It's a bit of a grey area, but I don't think that its moral to have a system that tries to incentivizes a very few (some of them children) to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on micro-transactions. It's nice for the general population, and you can argue that it's the responsibility of the person with the money (or their parents) to be able to spend the money responsibly, but the games are still clearly trying to create and feed an addiction. But what about a sense of pride and accomplishment? Seriously though, I doubt microtransactions are goimg anywhere. And they're far from the worst example of predatory capitalism out there. For better or worse, a fool and his money are soon parted, so the best way to keep your money is to not be a fool. That being said, I do think microtransactions did not earn their less-than-stellar reputation by coincidence. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On December 22 2017 05:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Even optional/cosmetic microtransactions do merit the scrutiny applied to them. Some games (not Starcraft II so far) have models of microtransactions which are clearly exploitative, and purely targeted at 'whales'. It's a bit of a grey area, but I don't think that its moral to have a system that tries to incentivizes a very few (some of them children) to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on micro-transactions. It's nice for the general population, and you can argue that it's the responsibility of the person with the money (or their parents) to be able to spend the money responsibly, but the games are still clearly trying to create and feed an addiction. The responsibility does fall on the consumer though. The people that get addicted/spend stupid amounts on cosmetics would probably be obsessed with buying espensive clothes and jewelry in real life if they weren't gamers. Yes it's sad that kids get addicted and that some games aim to exploit them. But the business model of f2p with cosmetics can offer a lot to the consumer base. Especially when said cosmetics can support development and esports. It gives people the option to not only support the game/esport but also get something out of it for themselves The games that make you pay to get a different/better experience can go to hell however | ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 22 2017 06:42 Fango wrote: The responsibility does fall on the consumer though. The people that get addicted/spend stupid amounts on cosmetics would probably be obsessed with buying espensive clothes and jewelry in real life if they weren't gamers. Yes it's sad that kids get addicted and that some games aim to exploit them. But the business model of f2p with cosmetics can offer a lot to the consumer base. Especially when said cosmetics can support development and esports. It gives people the option to not only support the game/esport but also get something out of it for themselves The games that make you pay to get a different/better experience can go to hell however The responsibility ultimately being the customer's, and finding the behaviour of the companies who aim to create and exploit addicts being despicable aren't mutually exclusive. Besides when your financial model is focused on hunting whales the experience of regular users does inevitably suffer as a result even if it isn't always immediately apparent (though it sometimes is). Starcraft II has done a pretty good job so far not to stray down that path, so let's hope it stays that way. | ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
| ||
| ||
