Are mods that improve games ok, even if the devs sell similar improvements as microtransactions?

Started by Legend, Nov 29, 2021, 03:47 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Legend

So many games nowadays sell quality of life features as microtransactions and build their monetization around frustrating the player into spending money. How does that mesh with the modding community?

Legend

I just hate microtransactions. So stupid.

the-pi-guy

Are there specific examples in mind?  

I fortunately haven't seen games sell qol as a micro transaction

Legend

Are there specific examples in mind?  

I fortunately haven't seen games sell qol as a micro transaction
A History Of Single-Player Games With Microtransactions, Sparked By DMC5 | KAKUCHOPUREI.COM

Basically most of these microtransactions are related to frustrating the player with slow progress. A mod that sped up progress or made it less annoying would decrease/remove the need to buy the microtransactions.

Halo Infinite is multiplayer but it inspired this thread. You can't choose the mode you'll play, and as such you can't complete certain challenges without spending a lot of time playing. But for $1 you can randomly swap the challenge with a different challenge. Having a mod that let you play what you wanted would decrease the need for this microtransaction.

kitler53

honestly, halo's GaaS just sounds like shame.  even the crazy Xbox leaning resetera isn't happy with it.  

if mods can get around their BS I say all the more power to the modders.  just don't be cheating asswipes. 


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens

the-pi-guy

I generally don't have an issue with micro transactions if they are limited to aesthetics. Want to sell a hat with a skull on it for 99¢, go for it. Couldn't care less.

But I don't believe they should sell stuff just to make the game easier or give players an edge in multiplayer.  

In this particular case, just sounds like using bad game design to make money.

It's not quite the same thing, but I think there's an analog here. Earlier Pokemon games (I'm sure it's still the same today) would have secret pokemon that either required an action replay (kind of like a mod :P ) or going to a special real world event.

It's pretty easily my most hated game design decision type. Stuff shouldn't be locked out, only to be given to privileged players.  

This isn't quite so bad. There are some instances where random chance plays a factor in how a game goes, and that's generally okay. But it feels problematic to give privileged players more benefits.



Legend

I generally don't have an issue with micro transactions if they are limited to aesthetics. Want to sell a hat with a skull on it for 99¢, go for it. Couldn't care less.

But I don't believe they should sell stuff just to make the game easier or give players an edge in multiplayer.  

In this particular case, just sounds like using bad game design to make money.

It's not quite the same thing, but I think there's an analog here. Earlier Pokemon games (I'm sure it's still the same today) would have secret pokemon that either required an action replay (kind of like a mod :P ) or going to a special real world event.

It's pretty easily my most hated game design decision type. Stuff shouldn't be locked out, only to be given to privileged players.  

This isn't quite so bad. There are some instances where random chance plays a factor in how a game goes, and that's generally okay. But it feels problematic to give privileged players more benefits.



I'm tired of game design being used to funnel people towards microtransactions. I can play a game like subnautica and know every element was intended to be fun. If I'm grinding materials it's because the devs thought this was the proper game pace. If as a player I disagree, I can pull up console commands and do whatever I want.

Similarly Elite Dangerous (at least back when I played) had microtransactions but they were fully separate from the gameplay. You could buy bobbleheads and other decorations to go in your cockpit yet if you never left the game, you wouldn't even be aware of them.

Meanwhile in most non Sony AAA games (and I think Elite nowadays) cosmetic microtransactions infest gameplay. Halo Infinite is an easy recent example but basically every bit of grinding is engineered to make money. As someone who will never pay a cent it just makes games worse.





I enjoyed getting mew as a kid that way but I can see how completionists could be really frustrated by it.

kitler53

I'm tired of game design being used to funnel people towards microtransactions. I can play a game like subnautica and know every element was intended to be fun. If I'm grinding materials it's because the devs thought this was the proper game pace. If as a player I disagree, I can pull up console commands and do whatever I want.

Similarly Elite Dangerous (at least back when I played) had microtransactions but they were fully separate from the gameplay. You could buy bobbleheads and other decorations to go in your cockpit yet if you never left the game, you wouldn't even be aware of them.

Meanwhile in most non Sony AAA games (and I think Elite nowadays) cosmetic microtransactions infest gameplay. Halo Infinite is an easy recent example but basically every bit of grinding is engineered to make money. As someone who will never pay a cent it just makes games worse.





I enjoyed getting mew as a kid that way but I can see how completionists could be really frustrated by it.

while i would generally i'd like to say bad GaaSification is the worst part.

i play rocket league.  it has a season pass.  it's fine.  i've only read about halo but it sounds horrible.

the difference is in rocket leauge the challenges don't wreck gamplay.   Play XX matches.  Score YY goals.   Use ZZ emote.  all the challenges encourage you to just play and play well (except the emote one which isn't exactly gameplay at all).  in halo the challenges wreck gameplay because to finish a challenge specifically requires you to play a match badly.  ...or because you can't select the type of match to play it causes people to drop matches to make it faster to get to the match they want to complete their challenge.

i saw a post on resetera that really good.   the people that want to complete the challenges are frustrated because it is soo hard to do.  the people that don't care about challenges are frustrated because the people that do care about them are wrecking the gameplay.  


at the end of the day developers need to make money.   personally i'd prefer to just play $50 up front and have the game designed exclusively for fun instead of monetization.  but f2p is taking over the world and they still need to make money.  i won't condemn them for designing the game to entice people to pay for microtransactions but it need to be designed in a way that is cognizant of how people react to those designs.   

https://www.thegamer.com/players-optimize-fun-out-of-games/

a bad monetization policy can make a "fun" game "unfun".   it's a difficult balance but it's suuuper important.


Featured Artist: Vanessa Hudgens