New Study Suggests Only 6% of People Don't Spend Money on Microtransactions

new study suggest 90% of studies are total b******s with stats worked in order to give the result the creators want

like when you see an advert that says 70% of 85 people agree but you know they probably asked about 200 people they just chose a number to make it look better than it is

I took a good read of this article and the breakdown is a little bit flawed in my opinion. The options are:

Cosmetic only is ok (896 votes | 68.6%)
Dislike pay to win (287 votes | 22%)
I don’t purchase them (76 votes | 5.8%)
I’d rather pay up front (31 votes | 2.4%)
I’m a fan (17 votes | 1.3%)

Now it depends on what the questions actually were but these don't, on the surface, seem mutually exclusive. You might rather pay up front but also think cosmetic are ok. You could be a fan of microtransactions but not like pay to win.

What I think this small study does is ignore the complexity of the point. How do you define a micro-transaction. To me, there is a big different to being able to buy a particular skin and a loot box that MAY give you that skin. Micro-transactions are quite varied in their make up and I think it fair to say that not all gamers are that bothered about different types or maybe have bought a micro-transaction themselves. Of course, just my interpretation.

If so I’m happy to be in the minority. But it sounds a bit off, like they only looked at free to play games on a small survey

@Rudy_Manchego Yeah, I thought the same thing about the poll. It's apparently backed up by other surveys and stuff, though.

Still, I think it's worth remembering that we exist inside the hardcore bubble. Let's not forget publishers like EA, Activision, and even Sony make an absolute killing off microtransactions to the point where they're never going to ignore the potential.

@ShogunRok Oh yeah I would agree that we aren't average gamers. I mean, 7 million copies of BF2 were sold despite it having possibly the worst media attention since Aliens Colonial Marines.

Clearly micro-transactions make a fudge-ton of money but I'd love to see an honest breakdown of where that money is spent and with what games/titles and in what capacity. Not sure we ever will as that data is with publishers but I would guess that the majority of the cash is spent on a relatively small proportion of games. I maintain that even dedicated gamers like ourselves are not particularly bothered by some micro transactions only some of the worst tendencies of publishers.

How many of tgey people that said they are fine with cosmetic actually have paid for it though? Definitely not the best "study"

Why is every survey now a study?

@Rudy_Manchego Yeah full disclosure of a publisher's income would make for incredibly interesting reading — it'd reveal so much about the thought processes behind different models.

It's a useless question in that poll, which makes for a clickbait headline. 69% said that cosmetic microtransactions were okay, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are buying any of them.

LOL you guys don't believe it? Cause I'm pretty sure most of us, even those who complain like all the time, have bought a MT at least once in their life!

I quit.

@AFCC I complain all the time and I never did

@crimsontadpoles Agreed. The survey also says that only 22% dislike pay to win. Suggesting that 78% of the people are fine with the concept of pay to win? Of course not! That's why the poll doesn't make any sense.

@Octane you're the 6%

@crimsontadpoles Surely if you had the option of choosing between "I never buy them" and "cosmetic items are okay" you'd pick the former if it were true?

@get2sammyb Garrr that's fighting talk so that is.

Personally I have a big issue with 'loot boxes' - whether they are cosmetic only or not. I have no issue if these are ONLY in game, purchasable by in-game currency or awarded on completion of certain criteria etc BUT as soon as they are sold for 'real' money, then I think that is totally wrong.
I don't have an issue with cosmetic only micro-transaction - although I do think these should supplement the in-game cosmetic awards and not be the ONLY cosmetics in a game. I don't have as much issue as people have a choice BUT that choice should enable the gamer to buy 'exactly' what they want for a fixed amount - NO RANDOM CHANCE.
There should NEVER be any 'game changing' content - a new weapon should be given to all - although I will accept that cosmetic variations could be in 'Loot boxes' that are 'awarded' in game ONLY OR sold as a cosmetic only Micro transaction BUT able to buy exactly what cosmetic variation you want.
Personally I would prefer ALL cosmetics to be in the game anyway but I don't have too many issues with selling some as a micro-transaction content as long as the gamer can pick exactly which items they want and buy those. Spending a couple of £'s on a new cosmetic only outfit or camo for a weapon is a 'choice' and for some, they may want to spend a bit on 'cosmetics' but it doesn't affect the game and they are fully aware of what each item has cost them.
In the current situation, I would prefer that the 'Loot box' system, the chance to win some random reward is built into the game so no additional money is spent on these. Maybe you get one for completing a match or two, every new level you get etc. At most, any of the cosmetic items these contain can be bought for a set figure via a micro transaction. Say you want that camo that never drops in the in-game loot box, you have a choice to keep playing and hope you get lucky or buy it direct from the store. If the devs make the prices too high, they won't sell anyway.

Proudly into that 6%

woohoo in to the 6%

This gen ive bought 4 season passes, 2 stand alone content, no microtransactions.

@ShogunRok If there's multiple valid options, then I'd just be lazy and pick the first one.

Out of the 94% who didn't select "I don't purchase them", there's no way to know whether or not they purchased microtransactions, since the other options were about whether or not they liked them.

The only conclusion we can make from this poorly worded question is that somewhere between 6% and 100% of people don't buy microtransactions.

If I like a game I am likely to support it further through microtransaction depending on the content and what it offers.

@get2sammyb I don't watch Jim or frequent forums often, but I'm happy to be a 6 percenter; I actually have a brain.

I'm sorry guys... I'm part of the problem. I bought 10 keys in rocket league once...

I feel dirty now. I didn't even get what I wanted and got 3 duplicate skins!!!

Is single player DLC a microtransaction?
I always think of micro transaction as a small superficial item or power-up, but if extended SP DLC is a “microtransaction” then I’m guilty.

Happily part of the 6. Had to sit my niece down the other night and explain why buying a dance in fortnite was being mugged off and that's free to play! If someone wants to fund additional content by buying cosmetics, more fool them. I love star wars but still resisting buying SWBF2 until I find out what the progression system is changing to. Pay to win is pretty poor.

Bought some loot boxes in overwatch once because I really wanted a skin. Don’t regret it too much since they don’t have dlc and I only paid $20 for the game, but I probably won’t do micro transactions again.

Much as I'm a happy 6%'er, Rocket League is probably the nearest I've seen as an acceptable micro-transaction. The clue should be in the name...£1 or £2 max...what really grinds me is seeing a game where these "micro" transactions are as much as the games themselves!!

I ok with cosmetic-only microtransaction in multiplayer game (or multiplayer focused) as long as it's not pay to win, if it means constant update for the game.

I think one of the better game that has mtx is monhun world, there are alot of people that say monhun world didn't have mtx, that's because it's not shoved in their face like destiny 2 eververse or battlefront 2.

I'm not ok with lootbox though.

I bought a snowman head with Home. I believe that was my one and only microtransaction.

the survey is beyond useless, 1200 is statistically insignificant in relation to the number of people who buy/play games. it makes no attempt to differentiate types of microtransactions, games or gamers , for example MTs have way more prevalence,in mobile games, and in some cases it's almost a necessity to spend money. i imagine if the same survey was run on pushsquare, the results would be different, but also another microcosm.

i have no issue in principle with cosmetic items, so long as they have no gameplay elements, and the specific item is available for a defined price. as soon as any random element, or lootbox mechanism is introduced, real money should no longer be an option. i'm not a huge fan of lootboxes even when only in-game currency is involved. just let me earn what i want...

count me as part of that 6%. although, if i made one microtransaction in my life, more than 4 years ago, does that still count? lol i purchased the extra mission in valkyria chronicles because i loved that game so much...

I am okay with microtransactions if they are comsetic only and in free to play game. I only bought a couple of skins for League of Legends beacuse I loved that game so much. That was my one and only microtransaction. I don't feel that guilty about it because that game gave me so much joy and I wanted to support developers.

@leucocyte Bang on. A selection of 1,200 people cannot speak on behalf of the millions (and, if you're broadly defining gaming, billions) of players across the world. We also know nothing about the people who answered.

Looking at the report's breakdown of the results to the question "What do you think of microtransactions?" reveals a deeply flawed (and potentially rigged) answer structure, too. Assuming that participants could only pick one response, the 76 (5.8%) who answered "I don't purchase them" doesn't mean that the remaining 94.2% actively do; it simply means that others wanted to register their vote against another position statement, such as "cosmetic-only is okay" or "dislike pay-to-win" (in fact, given only one chance to be heard on this issue, I'd give far more importance to fighting against pay-to-win than I would to just saying "hey, I don't buy them, so this has nothing to do with me" and so I wouldn't be counted in the statistics accurately, because I generally don't spend on microtransactions but would've picked a different response). Whoever designed this survey did so in such a way to produce a result, intentional or not, that limited the percentage of people stating that they didn't spend money on microtransactions.

In other words, as somebody once famously said... "Oh, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

@Porco It's fine. Not like I've NEVER bought a microtransaction. I've got Guitar Hero songs. I bought some stupid BS for Mega Man 9. But as a general rule, I don't buy them, seek them out, look forward to them, etc... Even for games I love. I'm just naturally uninterested in add-ons.
PC did it best back in the day with expansions such as Brood War for Starcraft. That's how to do a proper expansion.

Sounds like crap to me as I know no one who buys micro transactions

to be fair in the download 1.5% of people who voted liked Sony last year. 5% EA. 20+% Riot.

Of the 2000 or so people who voted 65% watch gaming streams every week.

They are asking kids.

soooo me including in those 6%

Don’t care for it. Understand DLC and expansions, cosmetic ok if optional.

A fool and thier money are soon parted 💸

I have no problem with microtransactions, especially for FTP games, but I normally don't buy purely cosmetic ones.