The mere mention of “microtransaction” used to make me completely ignore a game, write it off, and immediately form a negative opinion.  Has anything changed?  Only slightly.  I still believe that 99% of games that use a MT business model are crap and that they should be written off and ignored.    Not all of them are crap though.  Finding even one that is a gem makes me question the idea just slightly.

Ideal: If a MT system is going to work then it must sell me items that I want to buy and not items that I feel like I have to buy.

Can such a system exist?  It just might be a paradox.  These cash shops work by giving people free to play games with a cash shop full of things they want to buy but also that they have to buy.  Worse is that the items they have to buy are consumable or temporary and will be gone quick enough that the players return to buy more because they feel compelled to continue purchasing.  Eventually the games become more expensive than a subscription model to the point of being Play to Pay.

Finding a game that uses a business model but is also worth playing because it’s a good game raises all sorts of problems.  First, why the business model instead of a subscription model?  Clearly they must feel that they can make more money with the business model.  Red flags should be going off everywhere now.  You’ll never make more than a subscription model if you can’t get people using your cash shop.  By design, cash shops require players to use them in order for them to work.

Whether it’s epic gear or mandatory consumables, the player will always be driven to the cash shop by the game in some way.  If we’re battling them purely on principle, and we stick to our guns, every business model I have ever encountered loses right here.  However, if I set the principles aside for a second (not diminishing them mind you) and look at the practical application, perhaps some form of balance might be found.

Making up a scenario (that will sound familiar) for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the most obtrusive MT a game sells is a potion.  If you buy the potion and I don’t then you’ll have a slight advantage because you will have 40% more HP.  Most people would then say this is being “forced” into using the cash shop to remain competitive.   If the cost is something like $0.05 for the item, and it’s expected that you may buy a few per day, we’re looking at two things. 1) an obtrusive cash shop but 2) Not a lot of money.  Setting aside our principles which would be screaming to be unleashed at this point, we can walk away paying less than a subscription fee.  Throw in a few more extras for yourself and you can even still pay under a subscription fee’s cost.  If players set a budget for themselves at a firm $14.99/month, is the business model workable for games that don’t blatantly cross the line?

I’m wishing that I could take a stance on this issue and say one way or another that this is workable or not.  The greater part of me is clawing at my insides to get out and scream “HERETICS! YOU SHALL ALL BURN!” at even the thought of buying anything from a cash shop.  But there’s one little part inside saying “this can work if the game is worth it…”

I guess the stance I’m taking at this point is that there are some games that defy logic.  There are business model games that should clearly be subscription model games — everything about them screams AAA subscription model with Mill+ subs, but a business model is used and one tiny little fly in the ointment is added to make people want to use the cash shop.  Do we throw out such games or do we give them some thought?  I’m truly torn.

Conceding that microtransaction models force players to use the cash shop by nature and that an ideal cash shop can never exist, is it possible that a high caliber game can come along and justify use of that cash shop as long as it remains at least somewhat reasonable?

Where once there was no room for discussion now lies a tiny crack for some rational consideration …. maybe.

Similar posts (automatically generated):

None Found