Xbox One Phil Spencer talks about microtransaction controversy

R

redtycoonseras

Active Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
82
Karma
0
So if you've gone on different gaming websites and forums one of the brewing controversies about the Xbox One is the microtransactions. It's gotten pretty bad and people are getting upset. Phil Spencer had no choice but to come out and talk about it. I'm not all that upset by it, it's the lame excuse that annoys me though I do understand why some gamers are throwing fits.

Phil Spencer apologizes kinda
 
The controversy in of it's self isn't a bad one. The problem is Phil Spencer and his reaction to it. The explanation isn't that great but micro-transactions have existed long before the Xbox One. This is just really people looking to be upset at the console. As long as it doesn't follow the pay to win model (which I doubt that Microsoft would do) I don't really see the problem. Even if the micro-transactions are stupid.
 
Micro-transactions will always exist. I think it's the way companies have been handling it. Look at EA for example. The microtransactions for the game make you feel like you've been ripped off, 'cuz I'm in disbelief that the true ending has to be bought. Eh? I also don't like that some free-to-play games have to have you buy little microtransactions to make the game feel complete. But there are some companies, like Nintendo, that handle the microtransactions well. At least they don't make you feel like you're ripped off. They add the microtransactions as an optional choice.

But yeah, didn't like how Phil explained his position on this.
 
thedoodseven said:
Micro-transactions will always exist. I think it's the way companies have been handling it. Look at EA for example. The microtransactions for the game make you feel like you've been ripped off, 'cuz I'm in disbelief that the true ending has to be bought. Eh? I also don't like that some free-to-play games have to have you buy little microtransactions to make the game feel complete. But there are some companies, like Nintendo, that handle the microtransactions well. At least they don't make you feel like you're ripped off. They add the microtransactions as an optional choice.

But yeah, didn't like how Phil explained his position on this.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Nintendo does a good job with how they manage the microtransactions. Even though there is in games like Mario or Fire Emblem, it's optional. It's the kind of optional that doesn't force you to buy. It's just something that adds experience but it don't mean you need it. That's why you can go on through the games without buying a single thing. But with how Microsoft and other companies handle it, sometimes, they make us feel ripped off.
 
I guess the “we’re still learning” is to feign innocence over something that’s prevalent in other areas (Apple, Android, etc.) The promotion for a “pay-to-win” ideology can only be as bad if there’s some kind of unfair advantage. Surely some of the content wouldn’t have a significant advantage for players that have more than enough money to spend.

Though I think it’s a waste of time to pay for something just so you can save having to watch and grind a few more pixels on the screen.
 
As long as the microtransaction doesn't mean it's necessary, then let it be. It's got to be optional. But the way it's being done these days, it's like they're forcing you to pay for them even though in hindsight, it shouldn't be. I miss those days when games didn't have these. I miss the days when expansion packs were just expansion packs. Now, they're just little itsy-bitsy pieces of game items that you have to pay bit by bit. Uggh.
 
Agreed. Nintendo does a good job with how they manage the microtransactions. Even though there is in games like Mario or Fire Emblem, it's optional. It's the kind of optional that doesn't force you to buy. It's just something that adds experience but it don't mean you need it. That's why you can go on through the games without buying a single thing. But with how Microsoft and other companies handle it, sometimes, they make us feel ripped off.
Click to expand...

You're right. Microsoft does make us feel ripped off even from the older consoles and games. Either way, I like my Xbox one.
 
maybe i am lost on what exactly micro transactions are.

i am ok with dlc or season passes for some games. (bf4,cod,forza5) are examples of where content can be added to give the game a bigger footprint maps and such can go a long way. cars come out they cant include a million cars at the price the games are and their are tracks alll over the world that could possibly be added.

with games like ac4 im not so much on board with dlc.. its a huge story line and shouldn't need enhancing ..

what i dont want to see is games like candy crush,bejewled,pants vs zombies real racing 3 where you pay to play more or you wait or have a time line.. or you pay for options in the game that are already in place but require unlocking.. we pay enough for the console and games that we shouldn't have restrictions its not a free to play game. killer instint is a different story. but we dont need to see that with every game no.
 
sc_shark said:
maybe i am lost on what exactly micro transactions are.

i am ok with dlc or season passes for some games. (bf4,cod,forza5) are examples of where content can be added to give the game a bigger footprint maps and such can go a long way. cars come out they cant include a million cars at the price the games are and their are tracks alll over the world that could possibly be added.

with games like ac4 im not so much on board with dlc.. its a huge story line and shouldn't need enhancing ..

what i dont want to see is games like candy crush,bejewled,pants vs zombies real racing 3 where you pay to play more or you wait or have a time line.. or you pay for options in the game that are already in place but require unlocking.. we pay enough for the console and games that we shouldn't have restrictions its not a free to play game. killer instint is a different story. but we dont need to see that with every game no.
Click to expand...

Right there. You hit it right there: Candy Crush and other games similar to it. Those are the microtransactions. Those are what people begin to hate these days. If that kind of transaction goes into the console market, then that's it. Seems we'll be seeing a lot of the free-to-play but filled with microtransactions. I think what the others are trying to say here is that microtransactions are only bad taste if they're needed for playing the game. Sometimes, there are games where you really, really need to do microtransactions to enjoy it. I hate that. The fear is what if Xbox One goes into that direction? Then uggh... it's going to be bad. Yeah, hope that doesn't happen.
 
Some games like PowerStar Golf allow you to purchase items instead of playing for them to make it easier for you.
You don't have to buy anything, but if you want to make it easier for you or get ahead faster, you can.
 
Microtransactions aren't that bad. As long as it doesn't force you to buy them, then I'm all for them. I still got the option to gather all the stuff by myself right? Just make it optional, and you can let them be there. That's why Nintendo does it nicely with their games. Same thing with Steam.
 
Microtransactions go way beyond Microsoft. Many cross platform games have them.

So far I've not run into any "pay to win" scenario. I think you can buy abilities in Ryse, but I've never felt like I needed them (the game doesn't seem overly hard).

The problem is when they creep into multiplayer games like BF4. You should never be able to buy things that help you unlock things faster, especially when they make it so long to unlock things.
 
These controversies are almost always more about the company's response to it than anything else. Spencer's not fooling anybody with that "we're still learning" line when it comes to microtransactions. Microtransactions have been around and quite prevalent for years. It's not the future of gaming, it's the present. Just come out and say how you plan on incorporating them into your system, because you've obviously been working on a strategy for quite some time, or don't say anything at all. This statement just stinks of patronizing.
 
Kerosene31 said:
Microtransactions go way beyond Microsoft. Many cross platform games have them.

So far I've not run into any "pay to win" scenario. I think you can buy abilities in Ryse, but I've never felt like I needed them (the game doesn't seem overly hard).

The problem is when they creep into multiplayer games like BF4. You should never be able to buy things that help you unlock things faster, especially when they make it so long to unlock things.
Click to expand...


idk.. if you are talking about battle packs being a bad thing. for the most part you can only earn battle packs and its "random gifts" now their is a few ways to buy and unlocks battlepacks but really it dosnt help you in game. sure it will or can unlock a gun but t mostly unlocks addons to the gun.. which to argument sake dont really help gain you and edge.. bf4/cod are one of those games you either have the eye hand coordination and are fast on the trigger or puttingthe cross hairs on the target.. the gun/add ons may give you a little zoom but

i have seen guys take me out from across the map with a bone stock assault rifle with iron sights and a grab rail.. that has nothing to do with the gun or add ons. its not a sniper.. heck i have the same gun with the 2x zoom on a eco spotter with front stubby and a sholder stock with the r22 supressor and it takes me everything i have to put 2-3 hit markets on the same targer that a guy free sighted me in on. tot he point ive taken 10 seconds to pull the trigger and im praying the guy dosnt move or i have to re setup.

i have bought the slim jim and gotten points for batlepacks and most of my gift stuff or unlocks has not helped me or given me anything that put me above other.. heck i have unlocked all the battlpacks i can wit slim jim and am thinking of doing it again under my parents email accounts..

yes it takes time and mostly skill to unlock stuff.. be it assult rifle kills, head shots,scoped shots ect ect.. they all add points towards an unlock.

now say you could buy guns.. or groupings of guns with in game credits and some were so high priced it was easier to spend 10 dollars to get those in game guns.. that to me becomes a micro transaction. im not for that.. but like most any game you need teirs to keep you interested. if you had every gun/add on progression wouldn't matter. you would have 10 loadouts that were built to how you play and odds are in 2 months you would be so bored of the game it would become pointless to play. with the unlock progression your always working towards more.
 
I agree, about the part being about it being Microtransactions all the time. However I am even more impressed on Phil Spencer coming out to address the situation for all the Xbox Community.
 
I'm not a big fan of microtransactions, but it is here to stay. Yes, we are purchasing the game and yes we should be able to get it in its entirety but mobile apps have been doing this for years.

J
 
It comes down to the fact that enough people are spending money on microtransactions and so companies can continue to justify having them in games. Protest with your wallets people!
 
KN1GHTMARE said:
It comes down to the fact that enough people are spending money on microtransactions and so companies can continue to justify having them in games. Protest with your wallets people!
Click to expand...

I agree. If you really want them to end, stop making those transactions. If enough folks stop, they'll get the message.

J
 
There are some things I like and some things I don't like about micro transactions. I like the advent of free games, first of all. What I don't like are free games that make you wait a long time when you're playing them, with the option included to pay to skip the wait time. That's just stupid. There are a lot of Facebook games like that; when I am forced to wait an hour so my structure can finish building, nothing makes me uninstall a game quicker. Now, this doesn't mean I don't like games like WarFrame, where you obtain experience by playing while having the option to enhance your progression with money. I don't mind free games that make their money like that (particularly because Warframe is one of the best free games I've ever played). As well, games that make money via skins/hats/stickers/other aesthetics don't bother me as long as they don't deliberately give power to those who pay.
 
I don't hate the idea of microtransactions. I'm completely fine with it, but the problem is how it's implemented. The controversy isn't really about the transactions it's about how Phil Spencer responded to it. He's not fooling anyone with the excuse. I agree with what other people said here, in this case Microsoft should take lessons from Nintendo they know how to do it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest threads

Back
Top