Obsidian Entertainment: "No microtransactions, of any kind, in our game"

[Raevenlord]

After the media coverage and customer response to some of the latest games to ship with the current gamers industry parasite of microtransactions or loot crates, it's only fair for media outlets to provide coverage for known companies that might take up that path, but choose not to. There's nothing inherently wrong with microtransactions, per se - it's up to each user to choose whether or not they want to take part in that particular economic bit of gaming. That said, it's just the way of the beast that microtransactions' implementation usually end up affecting progression systems and the ability for players to unlock what would otherwise be behind a paywall - just ask Destiny 2 or Star Wars: Battlefront 2 players. But while microtransactions of some kind may not have anything inherently wrong with them, loot boxes, by their very nature, actually might.

As such, here's some free coverage for Obsidian Entertainment, makers of Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas, Tyranny, and Pillars of Eternity 2: the company has said in a blog post that users should not, will not, can not expect any kind of microtransactions whatsoever to appear in their upcoming, super secret game, being developed in partnership with publisher Private Division. Obsidian's "emoney" said that "We're extremely excited about our upcoming RPG, and we know you are too. We wish we could tell you all about it right now… but we're going to hold off until the time is right. What we did want to talk about was a question a lot of you have been raising: "Will this upcoming game feature any lootboxes or other microtransactions?" To which he added: The answer is simply: "no." No microtransactions, of any kind, in our game." For me, that's one point more for Obsidian (whose Tyranny was actually amazing, in this editor's humble opinion). Vote with your wallet and all that.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[_Flare]

i hate Pay2Win
the whole other stuff is okay

 

[Prince Valiant]

I guess they may as well generate free hype with microcrapsactions being a popular topic right now.

 

[lexluthermiester]

This seems a good thing!

 

[Vayra86]

@Raevenlord I think we could have some good discussion on your statement 'There's nothing inherently wrong with microtransactions per se'

So you really think its perfectly fine to have a game that constantly hammers you with buy incentives? Even if the stuff is completely irrelevant to the gameplay? So if they start showing relevant or targeted ads with clickable links in your GTA V phone, that is fine? That puts GTA V's stabs at commerce in a whole other light now does it...

Did you really think this through? Remember these are paid/full price products we're discussing.

To me its a fine line that's already been crossed brutally. MTX have no place in a paid product, while they do have a place in free ones. This plays into the human psyche in the exact same way as lootboxes do; it all stimulates a constant consumerism, even when you enjoy entertainment that is already a product you paid for, you need to be 'consuming' or 'considering a new purchase'. Whatever happened to entertainment as an escape from daily reality? Hmmmm....

The fact you stated this so casually really is food for thought IMO. Is the ultimate purpose of mankind really just to 'consume'? In my mind, trade and commerce started with someone who needs or wants something, and a seller who has it. Today, we no longer decide for ourselves what we want, we let the seller tell us and nod in agreement 'because we're all free to choose'... Even though the seller is abusing our psychology and we seem oblivious to it.

 

[Raevenlord]

@Raevenlord I think we could have some good discussion on your statement 'There's nothing inherently wrong with microtransactions per se'

So you really think its perfectly fine to have a game that constantly hammers you with buy incentives? Even if the stuff is completely irrelevant to the gameplay? So if they start showing relevant or targeted ads with clickable links in your GTA V phone, that is fine? That puts GTA V's stabs at commerce in a whole other light now does it...

Did you really think this through? Remember these are paid/full price products we're discussing.

To me its a fine line that's already been crossed brutally. MTX have no place in a paid product, while they do have a place in free ones. This plays into the human psyche in the exact same way as lootboxes do; it all stimulates a constant consumerism, even when you enjoy entertainment that is already a product you paid for, you need to be 'consuming' or 'considering a new purchase'.

The fact you stated this so casually really is food for thought IMO. Is the ultimate purpose of mankind really just to 'consume'? In my mind, trade and commerce started with someone who needs or wants something, and a seller who has it. Today, we no longer decide for ourselves what we want, we let the seller tell us and nod in agreement 'because we're all free to choose'... Even though the seller is abusing our psychology and we seem oblivious to it.

It definitely lends itself to discussion. But the informality of the statement doesn't imply the absence of considered thought behind it.

Microtransactions in the vein of cosmetic items, for example, aren't necessarily wrong. And I argue that that is the (ought to be, really) natural state of microtransactions, where there is no benefit or detriment to the user in taking part in them, and it's totally up to us whether or not we want to partake. There is no "gambling" incentive, there is no improvement of earned XP, unlocking of weapons that may or may not alter a users' chances, buying extra lives so we can continue playing. It's a way for developers to rake in additional funding from the users that want to support them, and that's fine by me.

Those other forms of microtransaction that I mentioned, however, I do argue that they are indeed inherently wrong, as they have been in display in Battlefront 2, or Destiny 2, or a myriad of other games (Candy Crush, anyone)? Yes, they are optional, but they are so built-in in the games' design (read, Destiny 2 experience scaling for Bright engrams, which would certainly lead players towards spending money to unlock the engrams earlier, for example) that they are indeed detrimental. And the "full price vs free to play" argument can't be used to justify some microtransaction systems in free to play games. It's not just a matter of whether or not you can make a choice; those choices can be virtual in all but name, as is the case with Battlefront 2. More than 2 thousand hours to unlock all characters? Really?

The ads you mention aren't microtransactions as I referred to in the context of the piece; I did an editorial on that, actually.

However, your approach regarding the push towards continuous consumerism is an interesting one. On that angle, I'd agree with the inherent psychological push. It's the more interesting question out of all of these, really. Yes, it's up to the consumer to remain skeptical, to take a stance, and consider whether or not he wants to partake. However, the fact that we can choose not to partake in microtransactions doesn't (or it shouldn't, on principle) give developers a blank check in trying to lead us to spending more and more, with the old "carrot in front of the donkey" adage. I'd say it isn't, and that companies shouldn't be allowed to try and exploit that in the way that they do. But then again, I may be showing my natural lean towards regulation. Companies' main purpose is to increase the bottom line. Should they do it freely? No. It should be regulated, and social concerns should be imposed on them. Same with how to implement microtransactions. But my opinion is my own, and its mileage will certainly vary.

To sum it up, my personal opinion is that if the microtransactions in a game don't affect the games' design and gameplay; don't require purchases to enable enjoyment; and don't have a strong, provable inherent psychological factor as in lootboxes; they're fair game (there may be some other factors I'm not considering; sadly, I'm not perfect). So long as those factors are met, I think we as individuals also have to make decisions on whether or not to succumb to consumerism.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm not perfect

Well, you got pretty darn close right there. Thanks for this great response and good to see I'm not the only one who sees it like this. Gonna be reading your link now

 

[Raevenlord]

Well, you got pretty darn close right there. Thanks for this great response and good to see I'm not the only one who sees it like this. Gonna be reading your link now

It's great to have considered conversations instead of the usual light-saber juggling =) Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[Prince Valiant]

It definitely lends itself to discussion. But the informality of the statement doesn't imply the absence of considered thought behind it.

Microtransactions in the vein of cosmetic items, for example, aren't necessarily wrong. And I argue that that is the (ought to be, really) natural state of microtransactions, where there is no benefit or detriment to the user in taking part in them, and it's totally up to us whether or not we want to partake. There is no "gambling" incentive, there is no improvement of earned XP, unlocking of weapons that may or may not alter a users' chances, buying extra lives so we can continue playing. It's a way for developers to rake in additional funding from the users that want to support them, and that's fine by me.

Those other forms of microtransaction that I mentioned, however, I do argue that they are indeed inherently wrong, as they have been in display in Battlefront 2, or Destiny 2, or a myriad of other games (Candy Crush, anyone)? Yes, they are optional, but they are so built-in in the games' design (read, Destiny 2 experience scaling for Bright engrams, which would certainly lead players towards spending money to unlock the engrams earlier, for example) that they are indeed detrimental. And the "full price vs free to play" argument can't be used to justify some microtransaction systems in free to play games. It's not just a matter of whether or not you can make a choice; those choices can be virtual in all but name, as is the case with Battlefront 2. More than 2 thousand hours to unlock all characters? Really?

The ads you mention aren't microtransactions as I referred to in the context of the piece; I did an editorial on that, actually.

However, your approach regarding the push towards continuous consumerism is an interesting one. On that angle, I'd agree with the inherent psychological push. It's the more interesting question out of all of these, really. Yes, it's up to the consumer to remain skeptical, to take a stance, and consider whether or not he wants to partake. However, the fact that we can choose not to partake in microtransactions doesn't (or it shouldn't, on principle) give developers a blank check in trying to lead us to spending more and more, with the old "carrot in front of the donkey" adage. I'd say it isn't, and that companies shouldn't be allowed to try and exploit that in the way that they do. But then again, I may be showing my natural lean towards regulation. Companies' main purpose is to increase the bottom line. Should they do it freely? No. It should be regulated, and social concerns should be imposed on them. Same with how to implement microtransactions. But my opinion is my own, and its mileage will certainly vary.

To sum it up, my personal opinion is that if the microtransactions in a game don't affect the games' design and gameplay; don't require purchases to enable enjoyment; and don't have a strong, provable inherent psychological factor as in lootboxes; they're fair game (there may be some other factors I'm not considering; sadly, I'm not perfect). So long as those factors are met, I think we as individuals also have to make decisions on whether or not to succumb to consumerism.

On the other hand, even benign seeming things like cosmetics push developers toward more cosmetics instead of content.

 

[Vayra86]

That depends. If you look at Blizzard's way of pushing cosmetics; I really have no problems with that mostly. If you don't want to see it, you won't see it. Perhaps in the launcher there's a single tab saying 'look this is new' or there is some sort of event going on related to a charity connected to the sale of a cosmetic item. Fine!

And then there is incorporating cosmetic rewards as a currency that is earned in regular gameplay and converted into lootboxes. The Division is a good example. Takes it one step further and connects the currency to an ingame shop where you can buy more of it too. Now, IF the Division was plastering ads in my face all day saying 'look, you can buy a box' then this practice would be just as painful as MTX that influence game mechanics, in my book.

Devil is in the details, but really, the visibility of it matters a lot. Is it inconspicuous and only in the picture for those who care, by all means sell whatever you want... At that point, for me at least, it doesn't intrude on my immersion with the game, I can ignore it, and laugh at all the idiots collecting their meaningless carrots.

And then there is the 'bridge too far' method: patch releases based on new cosmetics. Look at any random MMO besides WoW and that's what you see, along with hordes of schoolgirls (or boys) drooling over digital boobies stuck in digital swimsuits and whatnot. Screw your immersion, we have swimsuits and top hats in our fantasy setting. More often than not, those items are even just bland copies of a real world thing, you can just smell the laziness and easy money.

That last example is also where you see the general game itself that is very slow to get fixes and updates, but there's a constant rain of cosmetic items coming down on you.

 

[Raevenlord]

That depends. If you look at Blizzard's way of pushing cosmetics; I really have no problems with that mostly. If you don't want to see it, you won't see it. Perhaps in the launcher there's a single tab saying 'look this is new' or there is some sort of event going on related to a charity connected to the sale of a cosmetic item. Fine!

And then there is incorporating cosmetic rewards as a currency that is earned in regular gameplay and converted into lootboxes. The Division is a good example. Takes it one step further and connects the currency to an ingame shop where you can buy more of it too. Now, IF the Division was plastering ads in my face all day saying 'look, you can buy a box' then this practice would be just as painful as MTX that influence game mechanics, in my book.

Devil is in the details, but really, the visibility of it matters a lot. Is it inconspicuous and only in the picture for those who care, by all means sell whatever you want... At that point, for me at least, it doesn't intrude on my immersion with the game, I can ignore it, and laugh at all the idiots collecting their meaningless carrots.

And then there is the 'bridge too far' method: patch releases based on new cosmetics. Look at any random MMO besides WoW and that's what you see, along with hordes of schoolgirls (or boys) drooling over digital boobies stuck in digital swimsuits and whatnot. Screw your immersion, we have swimsuits and top hats in our fantasy setting. More often than not, those items are even just bland copies of a real world thing, you can just smell the laziness and easy money.

That last example is also where you see the general game itself that is very slow to get fixes and updates, but there's a constant rain of cosmetic items coming down on you.

In Destiny 2, Curse of Osiris shipped with limited content, but there were more than a hundred additions to the Eververse cosmetic items...

 

[Vayra86]

In Destiny 2, Curse of Osiris shipped with limited content, but there were more than a hundred additions to the Eververse cosmetic items...

I saw that coming since Destiny 1 went console first One of the few big name games I do NOT regret having skipped entirely. Really that is the MMO-scheme for the mainstream that missed out on WoW, too late to the party, so they don't get a real MMO, they get an overpriced first person Warframe with 5% of its content. Let's hope it wisened some people up because gaming doesn't need this junk at all

 

[lexluthermiester]

'There's nothing inherently wrong with microtransactions per se'

That depends. Are the players expected to pay full price for a game? If so, micro-transactions are abhorrent. If the game is sold at an entry level fractional price it still lends itself to the nickel and dime effect which is still unpleasant if the game requires purchase of certain "items" to progress. The gaming industry maybe making money right now, but the public is getting wise to the cost of MT's and are beginning to actively avoid such.

Personally, have only ever used MT's twice, and both times it was on Android games. While the experiences weren't bad, I didn't feel like it was worth it either. After that I started looking very carefully at what was on offer vs what the price was.

And a lot of people are doing the same.