Exactly this. Jim makes a lot of good points.
They're doing good things now, but they were outright terrible at the start of this gen. I guess it's good they seem to be doing the right thing?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jim Sterling criticizes Microsoft's role in normalizing microtransactions (see staff post)
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Exactly this. Jim makes a lot of good points.
They're doing good things now, but they were outright terrible at the start of this gen. I guess it's good they seem to be doing the right thing?
I watched the video, the entire video, thank you. He changes his argument when it suits him regarding the newer MS titles (especially embarrassing when he gets to sea of thieves and acts like it doesnt count because reasons). He has valid points but choosing to ignore the current trajectory of MS while ignoring its competitors to act like its the worst of all them is a bit too much hyperbole for my taste.
Honestly, with such a clickbait title, I don't even want to watch the video.
How much time do you need to read a video title and form the conclusion that it's hyperbolic and absurd?
I need 5 seconds, tops. So yes, I had 5 second to spare and comment about it
If I see a video titled "apples are better than oranges, period", I don't need to watch 23 minutes of it to have a contrary opinion about it
This
And people wonder why gamer discourse has become so toxic? It's because of people like Jim Sterling.
and sony didn't fund theirs properly and then look what happened.
online infrastructure costs money, and just eating the cost tends to keep resourcing underfunded.
I think the idea that the industry took the lead from three crummy Xbox One launch games rather than the metric shit tons of money being made off these monetization strategies in the mobile space for years is an absolutely hilarious take.
You're not missing out, it's a 20 minute video that should be 3-4 minutes. And none of it is intelligent.
The guy literally regurgitates the most lazy /v/ talking points. EA bad! Micro transactions bad! To get that sweet, sweet basement dwelling patreon money. Sometimes he's not even wrong, but he plays to a certain crowd and just tells them what they want to hear. It's like the video game equivalent of fox news.
Skill cards are awarded by playing horde. Not by character leveling. Probably based on time played or level increments reached. I have a level 14 jack that I played 30 rounds with, didn't level up, and received 4 skill cards.
Yes, the problem isn't the DLC's and loot boxes going out of control (literally a casino), it's the guy who criticize it.
Is that opinion controversial? Yikes lol. I very much agree with you
I agree. That title alone makes his argument seem biased where he could have made a different title and then lay out what valid criticism he has. It just seems like he's trying to get people riled up.
Dude... what? If I can pay real money to purchase something in game, cosmetic or not, that's a microstransaction.
Most pro-consumer company at the moment, but everyone and their dog just loves to hate on MS, huh?
this guy gets it. that's where all of these strats were developed
And they are pushing cloud to make console hardware irrelevant. What a nasty bunch of people they are.
Summary of main points
Basically, Jim has 5 main points (Chapters) to why he feels it's Microsoft's fault for games being bad in the industry due to MTXs.
- Chapter 1 & 2: Think of this as the prologue and Microsoft setting the normalization of MTXs. Last generation started with MTXs with EA and Microsoft saw the opportunity for the future that games would have them, so they made their first party games towards them for XB1 launch. This in effect symbolizes their lack of good games because they needed those MTXs to sustain them instead of creating good, enticing games that Sony/Nintendo make without MTXs. Launch titles he touched on was Ryse, Forza 5, and Lococycle.
- Chapter 3: Excuse for using MTXs. Basically quotes from executives of those launch games about MTXs being optional until it turns to "timesavers" to change wording. This makes third party publishers extremely happy.
- Chapter 4: Microtransactionsoft. Basically, talks about MS' big AAA games having MTXs for no reason at all (Halo 5, Gears of War 4, Forza 7, etc.). Sony/Nintendo wasn't using them and MS just wanted to be greedy. Criticized Gears 5 for having MTX while stating "we have no loot boxes" and calling out the stroking of themselves by thinking they are the first to implement "no lootboxes" in games and moving the industry forward.
- Chapter 5: Final Chapter. Brings up some praise for accessibility for all users due to hardware/accessories and Gamepass and opening up to other platforms. However, talks about how MS is the company that got into games other than the fact that they didn't like Sony's marketshare in the industry. This is also the company that brought us paying for online gaming with consoles and played a big part of normalizing MTXs in games, makes the most powerful console in the world, but has no launch games designed specifically to take advantage of it. Final point is that it was using its original DRM plans to help normalize MTXs in games from 2013 to present and to make the future worse for gamers.
My take away is that I agree with his points. Even though, they might have some consumer friendly stuff going on now, there is a reason why they have made games that they made, and since MS is a hardware manufacturer, it promotes MTXs vs Sony/Nintendo who are getting more praises for their software output for the simple fact of not having them. Jim's example of Gears 5 saying no lootboxes, but has MTXs is kinda proving his point.
Getting people riled up or having click bait titles sell. It's one reason why Trump is so popular. They know exactly what to say to fire up/rile up his/her base. Toxicity won't ever end.
Want to see if publishers will support when people don't buy games day one anymore "because will be on Game Pass". This model is good for AA, indie and mobile games. We need way more data to see if this is good for AAA.
Steam doesn't need subscriptions fees to keep going.
In fact, no other store on PC demands fees from the users.
So whats the catch with consoles?
Sony doesn't offer dedicated servers to all games played online. The "online infraestructure" costs should be meaningless for them, and would be paid fully by their profits from the Store
They charge because people pay for it, there's no rational justification for it besides easy proffits
...there really needs to be a thread explaining why cosmetic-only progression boosters aren't pay-to-win.
And depending on game balance, even gameplay boosters aren't pay-to-win either: an example is League of Legends, as low level players technically have access to characters/abilities of equal power compared to higher level characters (the exception is talents, which doesn't matter as much due to rank matchmaking).
And depending on game balance, even gameplay boosters aren't pay-to-win either: an example is League of Legends, as low level players technically have access to characters/abilities of equal power compared to higher level characters (the exception is talents, which doesn't matter as much due to rank matchmaking).
Apparently he never played Last of Us or Uncharted 4 multiplayer..... transactions galore. I mean you were able to buy weapons in the Last of Us
Discussion Guidelines
Official Staff Communication
After due consideration we are reopening this thread with a less inflammatory/clickbait title.
Please keep in mind that this is not an invitation to engage in platform wars -- this should be a substantive discussion about the pervasiveness of microtransactions in the industry, how that came to be the case, and what role if any Microsoft played in that.
We will take action if members appear to be staying from that discussion on microtransactions, especially to troll or wage general console wars. Stay on topic.
Please keep in mind that this is not an invitation to engage in platform wars -- this should be a substantive discussion about the pervasiveness of microtransactions in the industry, how that came to be the case, and what role if any Microsoft played in that.
We will take action if members appear to be staying from that discussion on microtransactions, especially to troll or wage general console wars. Stay on topic.
Very click-baity title for that video, sad. MS has their own brand of annoying microtransactions that I hate for sure, but this is BS. MS has actually been more pro-consumer this gen than sony and nintendo combined. Jim looks like an idiot here.
I really think Jim has a bias against MS here simply bc he doesnt like their games as much as sony/nintendo and those companies have does far worse to be anti-consumer imo.
I really think Jim has a bias against MS here simply bc he doesnt like their games as much as sony/nintendo and those companies have does far worse to be anti-consumer imo.
Last edited:
It's weird to do this now when MS seem to be avoiding shitty practices completely. Then you have games like Fifa and NBA 2K.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with cosmetic microtransactions that do not incorporate lootbox elements. There's no bible that says $60 games can't have MTX, and it's especially silly to complain about them in service games that will be receiving a substantial amount of post-launch support.
In his own way, Jim injects quite a bit of toxicity into the general discussion.
In his own way, Jim injects quite a bit of toxicity into the general discussion.
I get what he means. It isn't as if Nintendo and Sony don't dip into the tantalizingly tainted, seemingly endless well that is Microtransactions. Sony has Uncharted 4, TLoU, GT Sport, and MLB The Show all of which had microtransactions. Nintendo has it's phone games and recently released Super Kirby Clash. The immense difference between them and Microsoft is that Microsoft threw itself on the knife on behalf of Microtransactions. Microsoft spent a large portion of this gen normalizing and defending them. Sony and Nintendo may on some level agree with Microsoft (How can they say no to more money?), but neither of them have come close to putting in the effort Microsoft has.
Edit: Sony and Nintendo are the types to enter the field after Microsoft has normalized the BS and taken the initial backlash, like online paywalls.
Edit: Sony and Nintendo are the types to enter the field after Microsoft has normalized the BS and taken the initial backlash, like online paywalls.
I don't think this take is wrong, but it is a couple of years too late. Microsoft as a publisher has moved away from the worst of the stuff they used to make in this regard
Uncharted 4 had loot boxes and TLOU had gameplay changing Microtransactions that ruined the MP. However I agree with the overall point that MS has chased after anti-consumer trends that 3rd party publishers do alot off, whereas Sony/Nintendo did a good job of not following them so aggressively and just focused on making games that made their console stand out. I do think MS for the most part do get it now and recent moves have been really consumer friendly.
The first line basically calls MS a 'crummy, parasitic publisher'.
Sigh
This was a pretty weak piece by Jim quite honestly
Why didnt he bring up MS's role in starting XBL which was entirely intended for the specific purpose of microtransaction, pay to play online and other horrible normalized business practices? There are far worse instances in the gaming sphere MS has spearheaded related to anti consumer monetization practices than 3 Xbox One launch title to stuff into a nearly half an hour video
Why didnt he bring up MS's role in starting XBL which was entirely intended for the specific purpose of microtransaction, pay to play online and other horrible normalized business practices? There are far worse instances in the gaming sphere MS has spearheaded related to anti consumer monetization practices than 3 Xbox One launch title to stuff into a nearly half an hour video
This is really the worst thing Microsoft has done and one of my problems with the video is that it's just mentioned with a single sentence. Everything else he's criticizing was done by EA before and he even acknowledges this.
Not really. Sony tried a lot of shit last gen like online passes and MTX. But they learned this gen. Nintendo wasn't much better with locking stuff behind 15€ toys or charging for their abysmal online stuff. All big publishers try to squeeze as much money out of their customers. It's always a small path between keeping them happy enough and charge for more.
Eh.... ms current games have at worst cosmetics , this is a pretty bad video if we're being honest. Has he played nba2k20? That is literally nickle and dime the game 😄
Of course but the assertion is that they normalized it in the first place. This is very similar to how certain publishers normalized Lootboxes and one pub took to the next level and now are backing off of it as if that would earn the good will cookies.
Sure, but if a game has microtransactions then it will be developed with microtransactions in mind with systems being developed around it. As what is the point with incorporating it in anyway if it does not do anything? In a way this can change how the game is made.
Let me put it this way, if it's just cosmetics, then why does mircotransaction have to be there in the first place?
But hey if it's DLC additional content like for expansions with regards to games like Witcher 3, Horzion Zero Dawn, Spider-Man, etc. I wouldn't mind paying for those