Heartless_Gamer on micro-transactions
Heartless_Gamer has a post about micro-transactions over on his blog. A good read. DangerLands will be microtransaction/pay-for-premium-content based, but free to play for the basics, so I’m very interested in opinions for or against. I happen to like the model, which I first came across in Puzzle Pirates. What do you think? Subscription or pay-as-you-go? The lazy bastard in me says subscription. The casual dude says no subscription.
Related Posts
We love comments!
- Rav4ge on MP 85: Mother’s Pizza
- Rer on MP 85: Mother’s Pizza
- Rer on Review: The Witcher 2
- xXJayeDuBXx on The Steam Gift Card: AKA The Players Club Card
- Maeve on Free is good
- Josh on Let’s Play SMNC: Leo
Loading...
Meh, I’m like you. There are pros and cons to both models. It’s nice to have a free to play game but I find the microtransactions can end up costing you more. I think it depends on the game. If it is strictly a PvE game, then the microtransaction model isn’t too bad. If there is any PvP in it, then it would really give too much of an advantage for those who did buy up all the extras and I would either have to pony up the extra cash or quit the game most likely.
In the situation of Battlefield Heroes, it wasn’t a smart move because no one was given any time to react accordingly. I just picked it up yesterday, and while it is certainly fun, there are glaring differences between those who purchased gear and those who haven’t in my opinion. Though, my opinion shouldn’t really stand for much at this point because I’ve only played about 10 games.
@Rer
As a veteran of all of the BF:Heroes beta tests, I disagree. The default weapons, which I use almost exclusively, are more than sufficient. As in my article, the proof is in my profile.
Yes, the new pay-only weapons give an advantage, but it is not as glaring as you make it out to be. I don’t agree that they did it, but it’s not as damning as people make it out to be.
The more damaging change, that is still being felt out by the community, is bandages. They are now pay-only and used to be an integral part of the game play balance. Without a proliferation of bandages on almost every player, the game could suffer.
Also, the weapons are available at no cost, just not as easily as before, to the players that want to play for free.
However, BF:Heroes is still in beta, which everyone seems to have forgotten. Changes are to be expected. However, EA Dice’s communication should have been better!
Yeah, I read your article and you make some excellent points.
Perhaps its just because some Admiral with a Cannon soloed almost our entire team xD XD. Now that I’ve played more, and have tried different servers, its certainly not as bad as I first thought it was. As you stated, even with default weapons I tend to always come in 1st or 2nd for the Nationals (though we almost always seem to lose… despite whatever server I’m on, can’t tell why).
Theoretically speaking, for all free2play games, I am all for players who pay more money to have more options/advantages. I think of it this way: every army needs grunts and officers, and you need more grunts than officers. Most players will opt for the cheap/free choice, and a few will pony up for officer status (better weapons, etc.). Those players are essentially footing the bill for the freeloaders…er free players. In return, the free players are providing the grunts to flesh out the game.
How about this as an example: SWTOR. Let anyone play for free, but they can only be storm troopers/rebel soldier equivalents. People who sub can be jedi/smugglers/etc. I bet the world would naturally evolve to have lots of troopers per jedi and there wouldn’t be any complaints about “too many jedi”.
Woot! Slurms and I get to play SW:ToR for free!
6 comments
Meh, I’m like you. There are pros and cons to both models. It’s nice to have a free to play game but I find the microtransactions can end up costing you more. I think it depends on the game. If it is strictly a PvE game, then the microtransaction model isn’t too bad. If there is any PvP in it, then it would really give too much of an advantage for those who did buy up all the extras and I would either have to pony up the extra cash or quit the game most likely.
In the situation of Battlefield Heroes, it wasn’t a smart move because no one was given any time to react accordingly. I just picked it up yesterday, and while it is certainly fun, there are glaring differences between those who purchased gear and those who haven’t in my opinion. Though, my opinion shouldn’t really stand for much at this point because I’ve only played about 10 games.
@Rer
As a veteran of all of the BF:Heroes beta tests, I disagree. The default weapons, which I use almost exclusively, are more than sufficient. As in my article, the proof is in my profile.
Yes, the new pay-only weapons give an advantage, but it is not as glaring as you make it out to be. I don’t agree that they did it, but it’s not as damning as people make it out to be.
The more damaging change, that is still being felt out by the community, is bandages. They are now pay-only and used to be an integral part of the game play balance. Without a proliferation of bandages on almost every player, the game could suffer.
Also, the weapons are available at no cost, just not as easily as before, to the players that want to play for free.
However, BF:Heroes is still in beta, which everyone seems to have forgotten. Changes are to be expected. However, EA Dice’s communication should have been better!
Yeah, I read your article and you make some excellent points.
Perhaps its just because some Admiral with a Cannon soloed almost our entire team xD XD. Now that I’ve played more, and have tried different servers, its certainly not as bad as I first thought it was. As you stated, even with default weapons I tend to always come in 1st or 2nd for the Nationals (though we almost always seem to lose… despite whatever server I’m on, can’t tell why).
Theoretically speaking, for all free2play games, I am all for players who pay more money to have more options/advantages. I think of it this way: every army needs grunts and officers, and you need more grunts than officers. Most players will opt for the cheap/free choice, and a few will pony up for officer status (better weapons, etc.). Those players are essentially footing the bill for the freeloaders…er free players. In return, the free players are providing the grunts to flesh out the game.
How about this as an example: SWTOR. Let anyone play for free, but they can only be storm troopers/rebel soldier equivalents. People who sub can be jedi/smugglers/etc. I bet the world would naturally evolve to have lots of troopers per jedi and there wouldn’t be any complaints about “too many jedi”.
Woot! Slurms and I get to play SW:ToR for free!
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Please fill the required fields...