Mortal Kombat X May Feature Microtransactions

Dohc-WP

Dohc-WP

Ron Burgundy
Mortal Kombat X looks set to feature microtransactions, if one of its developers is to be believed.

Speaking to IGN at a recent event for the game, NetherRealm Studios marketing manager Brian Goodman explained that the company wasn't prepared to discuss microtransactions "yet", all but confirming there would come a point in the future where an announcement will be made.

"We are not releasing any details on that yet," he said when asked if the feature would be included in the upcoming brawler. "Nothing to say about microtransactions yet."

Though not an official confirmation, the implication of "yet" suggests we will be hearing about microtransactions in the future.

There's no way to predict how such a feature could be implemented, though if the Krypt makes a return it could be used in conjunction with that. In previous games, the Krypt was a large area designed to look like a graveyard, with a huge number of tombs you could unlock using the in-game currency Koins. Some of the tombs included secret costumes, fatalities, art and even fighters.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility, therefore, that you'll be able to download packs of Koins to expedite the arduous process of getting everything. While this is pure speculation at this point, it does seem microtransactions will likely be present in Mortal Kombat X in some shape or form.

Also at the event, we got to check out the newly announced Living Towers mode, which adds unique gameplay modifiers to standard matches, and get a hint at even more characters that could be on the way.

Source: IGN
 
It's not the 1st of April yet, is it? MK can't have microtransactions. It just cant. Next thing you know you need to BUY special moves and fatalities...
 
Makes sense, take a popular game with great replay value and you have a gold mine. Pity though, I was really looking forward to this game but not anymore.
 
It's become a trend more and more where more companies implement this - as if making money on the game alone just is not enough.. it used to be.
 
Hagan said:
Seems more likely. :cool:
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think you're right, and all the while, games are getting more expensive to buy in the first place, and you have to buy DLC, and then there's micro transactions thrown in as well. The cost of buying a game doesn't even come close to the total price to play it fully any more
 
As long as the micro transactions dont make the game unplayable without spending cash then they can do what they like... I dont have a problem with micro transactions when they are done properly, and not to create a pay to win scenario...
 
Tom said:
As long as the micro transactions dont make the game unplayable without spending cash then they can do what they like... I dont have a problem with micro transactions when they are done properly, and not to create a pay to win scenario...
Click to expand...

The future of gaming
You have reached your limit of online fights for the day, please swipe your credit card to continue
Click to expand...
That or
Please insert credit card to continue
Click to expand...
ku-xlarge.gif
 
Last edited:
Personally i wudnt mind, i mean fatalities are cosmetic, also wudnt mind buying skins for characters
 
If it's just skins and new fighters like MK10 then I don't see too much of any issue with it. Hopefully it's nothing egregious.
 
Isengard said:
If it's just skins and new fighters like MK10 then I don't see too much of any issue with it. Hopefully it's nothing egregious.
Click to expand...

Ya look if it's stuff that the game is just as good without, then it doesn't bother me, like skins and stuff, I don't really care about that, but if they eg only give you half the characters, and you have to pay for more, that's a different matter. The problem is that they are finding more and more ways to squeeze money from people who have already bought the game
 
I think that the time has come where we all accept that DLC is here to stay. Not because of the 'greed' of companies but primarily because it works as a business model. If Microtransactions work in a business sense, it would be stupid for companies to not take advantage of it. The upshot of microtransactions is that it allows the company to generate revenue long after the release of the game which in the past was not nearly as realistic an expectation. Let us not forget that at the end of the day; the business of making games is a business. Clearly this model of business works; so if you as a business decide not to do something that works on a business sense you are clearly out of your mind.

I like the idea put forth of integration with the old Krypt. I feel that would be a fair thing to do. Perhaps even open it up somewhat to the community to allow them to design and create their own costumes etc in order to foster a greater internal game economy. As long as it doesn't detract from the usual experience of the game.

Moreover; even if it does detract from the non micro-paying users' experience; that is their prerogative to make as a company and as such; the only way you could show them the invalidity of their decision is to make them suffer financially by not buyig the game. But I feel like we all know that the game will sell well and that the microtransactions will ,(if implemented), generate good revenue for the company. So having a pretty good idea of how things will go even ahead of launch; why would they change something that will clearly be profitable?
 
Snare said:
I think that the time has come where we all accept that DLC is here to stay. Not because of the 'greed' of companies but primarily because it works as a business model. If Microtransactions work in a business sense, it would be stupid for companies to not take advantage of it. The upshot of microtransactions is that it allows the company to generate revenue long after the release of the game which in the past was not nearly as realistic an expectation. Let us not forget that at the end of the day; the business of making games is a business. Clearly this model of business works; so if you as a business decide not to do something that works on a business sense you are clearly out of your mind.

I like the idea put forth of integration with the old Krypt. I feel that would be a fair thing to do. Perhaps even open it up somewhat to the community to allow them to design and create their own costumes etc in order to foster a greater internal game economy. As long as it doesn't detract from the usual experience of the game.

Moreover; even if it does detract from the non micro-paying users' experience; that is their prerogative to make as a company and as such; the only way you could show them the invalidity of their decision is to make them suffer financially by not buyig the game. But I feel like we all know that the game will sell well and that the microtransactions will ,(if implemented), generate good revenue for the company. So having a pretty good idea of how things will go even ahead of launch; why would they change something that will clearly be profitable?
Click to expand...

Technically what you say I sound and I won't discredit any of it.

However let's take games A and B.

Game A has everything unlocked and no micro-transactions, you can access all the content in the game for R600.

Game B has micro-transactions, in order to get the same experience as A you need to pay R5 a day, therefore if you don't pay the additional costs you get less of an experience compared to A even though the 2 games are essentially the same.

Now given the above, game B should be cheaper than A because B offers less in the base package compared to A. However game B will also be sold for R600 and after the additional transactions will cost more than B.

Now if B was sold for R300 I would accept the microtransactions but not when you are paying full price for half a game. The model of microtransactions works in a free game because if the game is good and the system is reasonable you can justify spending more on a game you enjoy. However in a R600 game I'm paying for a full game, not something I'll pay on day one for and then realise without microtransactions the game is unplayable and I've wasted my money.

Microtransactions are not compatible with a AAA game that is sold at full retail.
 
Ike_009 said:
Technically what you say I sound and I won't discredit any of it.

However let's take games A and B.

Game A has everything unlocked and no micro-transactions, you can access all the content in the game for R600.

Game B has micro-transactions, in order to get the same experience as A you need to pay R5 a day, therefore if you don't pay the additional costs you get less of an experience compared to A even though the 2 games are essentially the same.

Now given the above, game B should be cheaper than A because B offers less in the base package compared to A. However game B will also be sold for R600 and after the additional transactions will cost more than B.

Now if B was sold for R300 I would accept the microtransactions but not when you are paying full price for half a game. The model of microtransactions works in a free game because if the game is good and the system is reasonable you can justify spending more on a game you enjoy. However in a R600 game I'm paying for a full game, not something I'll pay on day one for and then realise without microtransactions the game is unplayable and I've wasted my money.

Microtransactions are not compatible with a AAA game that is sold at full retail.
Click to expand...

http://gamerant.com/ea-dlc-microtransactions-profit-billion-dollars/

Cowen & Co estimates that he “extra content” EA is charging in their lineup of 2014 releases could bring in a billion dollars this year, a new record for EA in an age where the current-gen gaming platforms are pushing digital content more than ever, much of which are considered add-ons.
Click to expand...

Clearly they are compatible. If they weren't then they wouldn't feel confident in attaining such numbers in terms of revenue. Is it compatible in the sense of consumer loyalty from companies? Perhaps not, but my point is that from a business perspective it is clearly compatible. Not only have consumers shown a willingness to pay for these things. They have shown that there is a greater demand for these things.

So I think the problem is that we have to find a balance between making microtransactions viable and sensible without making the game wholly play to win. Clearly they are here to stay not completely because companies want them there; but also because people are buying them.
 
[MENTION=12130]Snare[/MENTION] anything can be justified from a profit perspective but if your screwing over your customers then your customers are being ripped off. That's what my problem is here, someone is looking at the profit figure and thinking how much more can they milk from the less informed of their customers.
 
Ike_009 said:
[MENTION=12130]Snare[/MENTION] anything can be justified from a profit perspective but if your screwing over your customers then your customers are being ripped off. That's what my problem is here, someone is looking at the profit figure and thinking how much more can they milk from the less informed of their customers.
Click to expand...

But then we are shifting this discussion away from the viability of a business strategy and more towards what the fundamental pitfalls are of the current system of capitalism.

Moreover no one has ever forced anyone to parttake in microtransactions. You can only be ripped off if you decide to give them your money to begin with. Is the nature of microtransactions somewhat incoherent and very intransparent? Absolutely. Is it a rip-off to have optional transactions added to a R600 game? No. The value of microtransactions are completely dependent on the community. If you feel you will be ripped off to find that you have to pay for an extra skin or whatever simply means you should avoid buying that skin. If you feel that the presence of an online store in our game is incongruent with your idea of what the game should be then you avoid it altogether or avoid the game.

The reality is that the gaming business model has changed. Clearly companies have embraced this change and clearly it is profitable. So from these facts we can conclude that this model is here to stay and will shape the landscape of how we game for years to come.

As a result; the way the customer decides to do his business must change as well. In the age of information; being misinformed is no longer an acceptable excuse to make if you feel you have been ripped off.
 
Like I said, our approach is from different camps. Whilst there is nothing wrong with your approach I also fear the future of gaming were fellow gamers justify the capitalist rape of consumers to make a quick buck. Especially in an age were publishers are increasingly lying to consumers, one need only look at watch dogs, AC unity, BF4 etc and see how developers are selling more and more incomplete games sitting back to take in huge profits at our expense.

I'm out of this thread, I don't enjoy table tennis debates much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top