The E3

[Drbretto]

They're not wrong to try to sell optional content with microtransactions. That doesn't make them evil, no matter how much you might not like the practice. The truth is, it's here to stay. That war is long over, and the benefits, while not necessarily obvious or readily apparent, are game-changing for all. Like it or not, microstransactions are firmly embedded into the industry now.

It's completely unrealistic to expect them to try to take some kind of a stand against them in general. It's an effective monetization to cover ongoing costs. If it keeps the vendors happy as well, it's part of the deal. No business is going to take a stand against making money. Seriously, sincerely, if you're still anti-microtansactions as of this moment in time, in 2017, then you simply don't understand it still. The only argument left is whether or not a company is being fair with them. Most of them are these days. Minecraft is not an exception. And they won't be, because they didn't spend $2 billion for the IP just to choke it to death. They are thinking long-term.

 

[Middleclaw]

I dislike microtransactions myself but I can see the benefit of it from an business standpoint but to me it gives the apperance of paid mods rather than actuall additional content. I can also see microtransacions becoming a plague in the future. For example. Need to mine iron and have a wood pick, Buy this stone pick recipe for $0.99 and you to can mine iron.

 

[Kel_Co]

I'm just annoyed that Mineplex is a default server in the multiplayer browser, and not Hypixel :/.

 

[Drbretto]

I dislike microtransactions myself but I can see the benefit of it from an business standpoint but to me it gives the apperance of paid mods rather than actuall additional content. I can also see microtransacions becoming a plague in the future. For example. Need to mine iron and have a wood pick, Buy this stone pick recipe for $0.99 and you to can mine iron.

No, that is pure fear mongering.

It really, truly is. This kind of attitude would have made sense a decade ago when things were still up in the air, but look around. Things are stabling off and it's pretty clear where the lines are on what is and isn't acceptable.

These people are not as dumb as you think they are. What you just described is absolutely never going to happen. That would drive away the entire fanbase. It would make absolutely no financial sense.

 

[Inaeo]

No, that is pure fear mongering.

It really, truly is. This kind of attitude would have made sense a decade ago when things were still up in the air, but look around. Things are stabling off and it's pretty clear where the lines are on what is and isn't acceptable.

These people are not as dumb as you think they are. What you just described is absolutely never going to happen. That would drive away the entire fanbase. It would make absolutely no financial sense.

The last thing I want to do is start a fight on our forums. As we've discussed previously, this place is kind of unique on the interwebs in that we tend to have actual discussions and rational debates, and this is a topic that can quickly get out of hand.

I agree that the market is moving toward everything being microtransactions. I don't like it, but I can see why businesses would operate that way. My problem with this is simply that I'm cheap. There. I said it. I already paid for my game. I have no interest in paying more money for content that game designers decided wasn't good enough for the game the first time around. I have even more issue with paying to unlock things that were coded and printed in the disc, but are unlocked until I pay more money to unlock it (seriously, F you Call of Duty, I won't forgive that).

What's worse to me is the cash gating that too many games are offering these days. You can go this far, or be competitive up until this level, then you have to give us cash to move on and be competitive at the next tier. Again, understand why they do it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I'm almost ok with the system that GTA: Online went with. In that system, if you have all the free time in the world, you can grind for cash and buy what you want. If you have little time and disposable income, you can buy game currency and get what you want. Unfortunately, I have no free time and no disposable income, so I'm boned again. At least I can earn what I can when I can and feel good that I earned it.

Moving these systems to Minecraft, a game that has already been paid for and the additional content has been freely provided (with exceptional customer service from the add-on developers, I might add), would be a slap in the face. Charging for skins and HD textures is one thing, as that's purely cosmetic. Charging for content they didn't make that was previously freely distributed is a whole other ball of wax. Unfortunately, the idea of needing to pay real money for improved gear needed to progress is something that is already done in games, and (although I don't foresee that happening to Minecraft) it is a practice that has seen a fair amount of traction in the gaming industry.

It's hard to justify closing a revenue stream once it's been opened. Businesses exist solely to make money (otherwise they're charities). Microsoft has destroyed perfectly good game franchises before. I'm not trying to fear monger. These are truths as I see them. I truly hope this time is different, and you can come back in five years and make fun of my mindset and worry. However, I've worked the retail sector long enough to know that we, the consumer, are a second priority to the green in our wallets. I truly hope Minecraft doesn't fall victim to this plague, not as a stand against the principle, but because it's the game I love.

 

[Drbretto]

Again Inaeo, I don't disagree with the idea that you don't have to like it. What I am telling you and the one I was responding to is that your fears DO NOT resemble reality. They are purely your fears based on your vision of the future they will bring. I'm pointing out that that is not the future it's moving towards. That you can't just file microtransactions under like or dislike. Microtransactions are going to be part of the process, but they are currently being used very fairly, and that is the only thing you can hope for.

You will never need to pay 99 cents for a pickaxe. That makes sense for absolutely no one. Nothing is behind a paywall in this game besides purely optional stuff. Some well-made texture packs, for example. That in no way, shape or form take away from your experience. There is zero indication that there ever will be any more to it than that here because of all of the reasons I outlined in this very thread. The fears you guys have over this are unfounded. The potential scenarios you speak of do not make financial sense. The amount of money they spent on the IP is literally all the proof you need to understand what they're trying to do here, and the kinds of microtransactions you are referring to would fly directly in the face of that.

Put simply, your fears are unfounded in this case. I'm cheap, too. I won't be buying 99% of the things they have for sale because, A) I'm cheap, and B) that content just isn't for me, so I'll let the people who are interested in it pay for it. I did buy their Natural Texture pack because I think it was worth the 99 cents. That's all there is to it. This isn't some precursor to a dystopian future where you pay a penny every time you try to move a step. That would undo the entire point going forward.

They will never, ever, ever choke this game out with the microtransactions from your nightmares. That is not something to fear here at all. They will, however, continue to sell entirely optional stuff for people who want it. While using a good portion of that income to pay for the free stuff they are continuing to churn out. This isn't about having some kind of faith in humanity. This is what the economics require for maximum long-term profit. You are safe here.

I'm not telling you you need to like microtransactions. But I am suggesting you reevaluate the reality of them now that there has been time for the markets to settle. You aren't the only one that shared those concerns. Those concerns have been heard and most reputable companies are being very fair with them. The only things behind paywalls are generally true blue expanded content, and optional cosmetics. That's fair. They're still working on the pay to win aspect in crappy mobile games, but those games exist for free to whoever wants to play them because of the people dumb enough to pay to win, so it's not like you're losing anything. Just avoid that kind of game.

Without paying a dime, you, personally, are benefiting from microtransactions as we speak. Other people are paying for your games for you all the time. This is a golden age of gaming because of this feature. Companies that use it fairly should be celebrated. Holding it against them because of a generalized idea of what they are is prejudicial. If a company shows signs of going over the line, demonize that particular company so they feel the pressure to stop. Otherwise, just enjoy the free features you keep getting.

 

[Middleclaw]

No, that is pure fear mongering.

It really, truly is. This kind of attitude would have made sense a decade ago when things were still up in the air, but look around. Things are stabling off and it's pretty clear where the lines are on what is and isn't acceptable.

These people are not as dumb as you think they are. What you just described is absolutely never going to happen. That would drive away the entire fanbase. It would make absolutely no financial sense.

I'm not here to cause argument. I just used Minecraft purly as an example. You may see it as fear mongering but it is already happening. A few gaming companies are already doing it by releasing their games complete but with several features locked behind paywalls or unfinished games with the finished parts as seperate DLC's (the affore mentioned Call of duty and No Mans Sky respectivly.) the majority of microtransactions these days are shortcuts people are willing to pay for than to do things honestly even if it means they are in for a long haul of grinding. But there is a small (and growing) market of locked content that you must pay to unlock. And if you think it's not becoming reality, go back a couple of years and look at the pay for mods that steam tried to do with Skyrim user created content.

 

[Drbretto]

I'm not here to cause argument. I just used Minecraft purly as an example. You may see it as fear mongering but it is already happening. A few gaming companies are already doing it by releasing their games complete but with several features locked behind paywalls or unfinished games with the finished parts as seperate DLC's (the affore mentioned Call of duty and No Mans Sky respectivly.) the majority of microtransactions these days are shortcuts people are willing to pay for than to do things honestly even if it means they are in for a long haul of grinding. But there is a small (and growing) market of locked content that you must pay to unlock. And if you think it's not becoming reality, go back a couple of years and look at the pay for mods that steam tried to do with Skyrim user created content.

You used minecraft because this is a discussion about minecraft on a minecraft board.

That we're talking about Minecraft's use of the practice is paramount.

It is not relevant how some other theoretical or real game is using it if there's zero reason to believe it will affect this game.

I don't care what your general thoughts are on microtransactions in a vacuum. They have nothing to do with this thread or this game.

 

[Inaeo]

Saying there is zero reason to believe Microsoft will try to wring as much money out of this game as possible, even to it's detriment and eventual demise, is simply ignoring economics and all that is past. I'm not saying they will straight up slap pay walls into the game or anything so brazen. What I'm suggesting is that the commonality of microtransactions has desensitized people to it, and Microsoft, or any other company in the industry for that matter, will slowly introduce it over the top of the game - first for minor things like skins and textures, as they have.

You stated that expanded content was fair to charge for, and that's the slippery slope I'm worried about (more in theory - this shit doesn't keep me up at night or anything). At what point does charging for modded content become a common practice, as it has in other games previous? What harm does it do if the modder is being recognized and hopefully rewarded? What is a fair price for modded content? What is a fair cut of that for the developer? These are the questions I asked myself, and gauging from past experience the answers are: As soon as we can get away with it; Originally helps the game then flushes it with so much crap nobody can tell what's good or bad any more; Whatever we can get away with; and As little as we can give them while having them still make more.

I don't want to be the cynic, but I've seen this cycle before. I'm giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. I'm sticking around. I'm still playing, and I'm actually recruiting new players when I talk to people who I think would be interested. But ignoring the possibility that I've seen before would be downright ignorant..

 

[MikW]

Saying there is zero reason to believe Microsoft will try to wring as much money out of this game as possible, even to it's detriment and eventual demise, is simply ignoring economics and all that is past. I'm not saying they will straight up slap pay walls into the game or anything so brazen. What I'm suggesting is that the commonality of microtransactions has desensitized people to it, and Microsoft, or any other company in the industry for that matter, will slowly introduce it over the top of the game - first for minor things like skins and textures, as they have.

You stated that expanded content was fair to charge for, and that's the slippery slope I'm worried about (more in theory - this shit doesn't keep me up at night or anything). At what point does charging for modded content become a common practice, as it has in other games previous? What harm does it do if the modder is being recognized and hopefully rewarded? What is a fair price for modded content? What is a fair cut of that for the developer? These are the questions I asked myself, and gauging from past experience the answers are: As soon as we can get away with it; Originally helps the game then flushes it with so much crap nobody can tell what's good or bad any more; Whatever we can get away with; and As little as we can give them while having them still make more.

I don't want to be the cynic, but I've seen this cycle before. I'm giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. I'm sticking around. I'm still playing, and I'm actually recruiting new players when I talk to people who I think would be interested. But ignoring the possibility that I've seen before would be downright ignorant..

Minecraft is different from other games. And Microsoft has seen it already. Too much microtransactions will kill the game, and Microsoft should be smart enough to know about it, as Microsoft's goal is to make Minecraft a 100 year game. Kinda similar to what Lego does. Lego has been around for about 70 years. You don't pay for each block. You just pay more for themed stuff.

 

[Drbretto]

You don't need to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt all you need to do is math. This isn't about cynicism. There's no illusion here. They're out to make as much money as humanly possible. As much as you might want to think they're a bunch of clowns, they know how to make money.

They are not going to go down any slippery slopes by necessity. You are thinking in millions and they're thinking in billions. This isn't a mom and pop operation trying to make a few quick bucks. This is a mega corporation playing a long game. I'm not pointing the lack of malicious intent so far to give you faith in the company. It's to point out why this isn't what you think it is. While I'm sure the DLC is a significant earner, it's supplemental. Small potatoes in the long run.

It helps pay for all the free content. You twisted my words. They're not selling game modes. They're selling texture packs, skins and maps to pay for all the crazy amounts of free content that will continue for years to come. You, today's consumer, are the bait. The fish are your kids. This is all about keeping the game relevant and they will do that by stoking the fanbase for decades. This includes supporting the modding community specifically.

The market has already spoken for itself and it will continue to do so. The only paid DLC models that will survive are the ones that do it right. In Microsoft's case, they are only going to be interested in what DLC drives more people to buy the game in the first place. Going down that slippery slope you speak of flies in the face of that. People pay 20-27 dollars for the game, sometimes multiple times for multiple platforms. A small percentage of these people spend a tiny amount on DLC. I believe I have spent $6 on it. The same 3 texture packs on two different platforms. I knew what I was doing when I bought them twice. They're nice texture packs and I had $3 to spare a couple of times. But, I've also purchased the PS4 version, PE, Java Version, and if I didn't get it while it was free in beta, I'd have paid for the Win10 version. That's around $60 worth, give or take. And if I end up having kids, I'll end up buying them all again for the PS7 and whatever else is out there.

They want to capitalize on, and continue cultivating the fanbase until Minecraft is simply a standard expense that comes with having a child. They want it to be ubiquitous. The only thing that could kill that plan is if a different game took over the fanbase. The only way that is going to happen is to be restrictive and alienate the current fanbase.

Even in the absolute worst case scenario where some clown CEO is dumb enough to kill that plan and cash in with restrictive DLC, we will always have the java version and the mods. That is bulletproof. They would lose their in fanbase to their own game.

You're one of my favorite posters here, so I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. But you framed my comments like I'm some naive ignoramus with my head in the sand. This is not ignorance. I understand what they're doing.

 

[MikW]

You don't need to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt all you need to do is math. This isn't about cynicism. There's no illusion here. They're out to make as much money as humanly possible. As much as you might want to think they're a bunch of clowns, they know how to make money.

They are not going to go down any slippery slopes by necessity. You are thinking in millions and they're thinking in billions. This isn't a mom and pop operation trying to make a few quick bucks. This is a mega corporation playing a long game. I'm not pointing the lack of malicious intent so far to give you faith in the company. It's to point out why this isn't what you think it is. While I'm sure the DLC is a significant earner, it's supplemental. Small potatoes in the long run.

It helps pay for all the free content. You twisted my words. They're not selling game modes. They're selling texture packs, skins and maps to pay for all the crazy amounts of free content that will continue for years to come. You, today's consumer, are the bait. The fish are your kids. This is all about keeping the game relevant and they will do that by stoking the fanbase for decades. This includes supporting the modding community specifically.

The market has already spoken for itself and it will continue to do so. The only paid DLC models that will survive are the ones that do it right. In Microsoft's case, they are only going to be interested in what DLC drives more people to buy the game in the first place. Going down that slippery slope you speak of flies in the face of that. People pay 20-27 dollars for the game, sometimes multiple times for multiple platforms. A small percentage of these people spend a tiny amount on DLC. I believe I have spent $6 on it. The same 3 texture packs on two different platforms. I knew what I was doing when I bought them twice. They're nice texture packs and I had $3 to spare a couple of times. But, I've also purchased the PS4 version, PE, Java Version, and if I didn't get it while it was free in beta, I'd have paid for the Win10 version. That's around $60 worth, give or take. And if I end up having kids, I'll end up buying them all again for the PS7 and whatever else is out there.

They want to capitalize on, and continue cultivating the fanbase until Minecraft is simply a standard expense that comes with having a child. They want it to be ubiquitous. The only thing that could kill that plan is if a different game took over the fanbase. The only way that is going to happen is to be restrictive and alienate the current fanbase.

Even in the absolute worst case scenario where some clown CEO is dumb enough to kill that plan and cash in with restrictive DLC, we will always have the java version and the mods. That is bulletproof. They would lose their in fanbase to their own game.

You're one of my favorite posters here, so I'm ok with agreeing to disagree. But you framed my comments like I'm some naive ignoramus with my head in the sand. This is not ignorance. I understand what they're doing.

TBH the texture packs and the other DLC content are well made IMO. They aren't a cheap cash grab, they are actually well made.

 

[Nuclear_Creeper0]

I don't know why this became a debate. My main concern is that I won't be able to play anymore without purchasing extended access like in Star Battlefront, where the extra content costs money.

 

[Drbretto]

I don't know why this became a debate.

The internet, that's why!

Seriously, I love this place and didn't want to turn this place to fight fests, but what you see here is a couple if people who feel strongly about a thing. What sets this place apart is even though we defend our beliefs passionately at times, I will always at least attempt to understand the other person, and I feel a lot of that in return.

I freaked out last time because I was afraid of what I've seen other places boil over on would happen here, but this is, by and large, one of the best internet communities I've been a part of. I think a little healthy debate can be healthy in the right environment. Inaeo isn't going to stop being one of my favorite posters because we see something from two different vantage points.

 

[Drbretto]

TBH the texture packs and the other DLC content are well made IMO. They aren't a cheap cash grab, they are actually well made.

Yes, I agree. I've spent hours and hours and hours going through texture packs. It's one of the most important parts of my game. What I lack in skill, I make up for in style, lol.

But, few compare to these. I can't even put my finger on it, but I completely fell in love with the natural texture pack. When the new shader for the Win10 version drops, the chance to finally see that texture pack, with presumably reliable shaders that don't kill performance, with the ability to poke my head inside from time to time with my rift and appreciate my own work in full on 3D, I may achieve vanilla minecraft Nirvana. I'm actually really excited about it. There's a charm to it that even higher definition packs just don't quite capture. I'm actually really looking forward to it.

And, before you ask, the shader is free. They know where the line is.

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

I don't know why this became a debate. My main concern is that I won't be able to play anymore without purchasing extended access like in Star Battlefront, where the extra content costs money.

I think its fair to say that, assuming you want to continue playing java-powered modded Minecraft, we've reached a consensus that THAT area at least is safe.

 

[Inaeo]

The internet, that's why!

Seriously, I love this place and didn't want to turn this place to fight fests, but what you see here is a couple if people who feel strongly about a thing. What sets this place apart is even though we defend our beliefs passionately at times, I will always at least attempt to understand the other person, and I feel a lot of that in return.

I freaked out last time because I was afraid of what I've seen other places boil over on would happen here, but this is, by and large, one of the best internet communities I've been a part of. I think a little healthy debate can be healthy in the right environment. Inaeo isn't going to stop being one of my favorite posters because we see something from two different vantage points.

All this heated discussion, and you go and make me blush.

 

[Drbretto]

All this heated discussion, and you go and make me blush.

You, more than anyone else here, take the time to read and understand someone else's point before responding 99% of the time. People like you are worth having a heated discussion over, even if we end up agreeing to disagree.

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

You, more than anyone else here, take the time to read and understand someone else's point before responding 99% of the time. People like you are worth having a heated discussion over, even if we end up agreeing to disagree.

THIS. Its one of those things where, even if a discussion gets a little heated, when you can have civilised discourse and come out of it respecting one another, even if you don't see eye to eye, that's a valuable thing!

 

[Drbretto]

It's a rare thing on the internet, too. This place has a really good bunch of people.