On Disc DLC And Micro-transactions Are the Consumers' Fault [OPINION]

In game, or "micro-transactions," day one, or on disc DLC, or God forbid, online requirements in order to play at all - these are all especially touchy subject matter with games today, and no matter how you feel on the matter, they all seem to be increasing in prevalence.

Back when games were confined to the arcades, the relationship between game developers/publishers, and the audience that played them seemed more upfront...honest. You plunked a quarter in, and got to play the game. If you didn't like isomething about it, you wouldn't keep playing. It was the job of the developer to make the game interesting enough to keep you loading it up with quarters. It was strictly business, and even as a kid, you were well aware of that relationship each and every time you jammed your tight little fist into your pocket to produce a quarter to keep the game going.

The stakes are higher now, as just about all the facets of gaming have improved, and you can't play most games nowadays for just a quarter. But the same mentality that kept you from playing one game in the arcade is still present when you toss a new game disc into your console at home. Don't like it something about a game? The solution is quite simple. Don't buy it, don't play it.

The average age of the gaming audience today is the ripe 'ol age of 30, meaning that most of us are adults. At least technically. We pay taxes, have jobs, disposable income, and all the pitfalls that come with it. When you find the time, it's nice to unwind and play a game for a bit. So when that time, or perhaps even your money are wasted on some game that screws you over with DLC offers, in game purchases for real world money, or whatever else, it's understandably annoying. However, this kind of information is easy enough to find thanks to the the internet.

I watched as Maxis struggled with their audiences' server problems when "SimCity" launched, a direct result of their always online DRM. As I'm the gaming equivalant of a curmudgeonly old man, shaking his fist at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn, I don't go in much for online gaming, so obviously, I don't like the idea of being required to keep a connection, even just to play a single player game. So, I didn't buy the game.

When EA's free-to-play "Real Racing 3" arrived, and it soon came to light that despite looking incredible for a mobile game, an costant barrage of pay-to-win offers made the game almost unplayable, I decided not to play it. It's much the same way with a host of other games. The information is all there (which we do our best to provide), it's just up to you to find it.

Now, if you don't bother to do research on a game, or you do, but buy it anyway expecting something different, you've forfeited your right to complain about the game, because you've just made an investment in something you profess to hate. Further more, you're supporting and encouraging the developer to continue with their practices. But if you don't buy it, you're sending a message to developers, publishers, everyone, and that speaks volumes more than a post on a forum, griping about it.

Eventually, the developers will get the clue, and they'll knock it off. They're in this to make money, and keep you coming back for more, so if the current model doesn't bring in the bucks, they'll have no other choice but to change it. Doesn't matter whether you're a game developer or a hagfish, survival's based on adaptation. The best way to send them a message is to vote with your wallets.