Microtransactions ruining video games

Are microtransactions ruining games?

First, video games are expensive art forms. Skyrimtopped up to $ 100 million,Final Fantasy VIIwas $ 145 million andGrand Theft Auto V.The price was $ 265 million.

Hit games likeSkyrimandGTAThey can make pretty big profits and put a lot of money in the company's pockets, but what about indie developers who can't get away with charging the same prices as EA, for example? clash of clansor Farmville from Facebook.

With in-game purchases, developers of mobile apps in particular can buy their games much cheaper to make them more attractive.

You can conclude that there are many stupid people in the world when a game like Clash of Clans makes $ 2.3 billion in 2016 (Intelligent Economist).

The fact is, games like cars devalue.

To begin with, EA currently has 26 games in theFIFAseries, a franchise that has become a dependable cash cow for the company. FIFAis basically the same game every year. Star Wars Battlefront IIcame out.

This game was the first to earn a bad name for microtransactions, and there has been a lot of controversy over whether purchases of this type ruin what makes video games so funny.

With the help of a random number generator, a player uses credits in exchange for a loot box, an animated box that generates a handful of often useless items, occasionally generating rare items of much greater value and at random.

First, if players can buy boxes that may contain items that will allow them to perform better in games, what's the point they deserve?

Second, buying loot boxes could be viewed as a form of gambling.

Half an hour later, a $ 90 credit card is topped up.

You see, not every box contains a valuable item, and in reality, you won't see such an item in the next 5 or 10 boxes that you buy for $ 2.99 each.

Now EA has run into problems with it, even though it hasn't really stopped them and the developers from continuing to implement some sort of microtransaction business model into their other games.