Microtransactions is working

SEANMCAD

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/309155/For_the_first_time_Ubisofts_microtransactions_outearned_digital_game_sales.php

I wouldnt expect the trend to change

RexKushman

The thread title should read... Microtransactions ARE working.... Not is working. 

As for the article...I have no issues with microtransactions in games so I didn't bother reading it.

SEANMCAD

RexKushman said:

The thread title should read... Microtransactions ARE working.... Not is working. 

As for the article...I have no issues with microtransactions in games so I didn't bother reading it.

good point and thanks for letting me know. I think for now I am going to keep it as such to see what kind of reaction I get.

Kyleran

Not surprising,  bought Fallout 4 on Steam for under $20 recently meanwhile there is "over $70 worth of DLC available  for the combined "low" price of $49.99.

Not sure that bundle even included the creation club or season's pass.

I also know there's another new DLC on the way.

What sucks about all this is they are core locking content like making your own ammo behind a $4.99 DLC.

That functionality was free as part of Fallout NV and while I could have bought it last night said f@@k them and closed the store.

Left a bad taste and if I run into too much more of that nonsense I'll hold off on buying any more Bethesda / Zenimax games, at least until they get so old all of the DLC  is bundled into one $14.99 game.

So yeah, considering they are giving away the core game and raping players on the DLC, the results make total sense that all of the big players are prospering from them.

Might backfire on them however.....

RPGForever

The model of the future.

cameltosis

SEANMCAD said:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/309155/For_the_first_time_Ubisofts_microtransactions_outearned_digital_game_sales.php

I wouldnt expect the trend to change

Your bad english aside, microtransactions are working for the developers. 

I would argue they are not working for the players themselves. I'm also surprised to see you supporting microtransactions. 

Phry

So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days

Gobstopper3D

Nevermind.

SEANMCAD

Phry said:

So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days

depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article.
lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well

ByrgenarHofen

SEANMCAD said:

Phry said:

So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days

depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article.
lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well

That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?

Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.

SEANMCAD

ByrgenarHofen said:

SEANMCAD said:

Phry said:

So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days

depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article.
lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well

That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?

Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.

and what is your point then?

ByrgenarHofen

SEANMCAD said:

ByrgenarHofen said:

SEANMCAD said:

Phry said:

So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days

depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article.
lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well

That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?

Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.

and what is your point then?

What do you think my point is?

postlarval

@SEANMCAD is just setting you guys up so he can inject how early access is a better model later in the thread.

It's a trap!

SEANMCAD

ByrgenarHofen said:

SEANMCAD said:

ByrgenarHofen said:

SEANMCAD said:

Phry said:

So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days

depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article.
lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well

That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?

Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.

and what is your point then?

What do you think my point is?

I dont know which is why I am asking.

regardless
My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.

What is your view? 

(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)

Kyleran

As the article defines micro-transactions as player recurring investment, or the sale of in-game items, DLC, season passes, and subscriptions, since developers are shifting increasing amounts of content out from the base game does it surprise anyone revenues from them are increasing?

In my example above, in Fallout NV the ability to make your own ammo was part of the core gameplay, in Fallout IV I have buy a $4.95 DLC to gain access to a module which includes a bunch of other content I don't really care about to do so.

As for complaining about it not impacting the bottom line, these are clever folks, I'm likely to give in at some point and pay the fee as it's a pittance, and that's what they are relying on others to do.

But if people did stop buying (and they might, the recent EA example is a decent test) then perhaps developers would once again consider not nickle-diming us to death.

Yeah, that's not the way to bet. 

SEANMCAD

Kyleran said:

As the article defines micro-transactions as player recurring investment, or the sale of in-game items, DLC, season passes, and subscriptions, since developers are shifting increasing amounts of content out from the base game does it surprise anyone revenues from them are increasing?

In my example above, in Fallout NV the ability to make your own ammo was part of the core gameplay, in Fallout IV I have buy a $4.95 DLC to gain access to a module which includes a bunch of other content I don't really care about to do so.

As for complaining about it not impacting the bottom line, these are clever folks, I'm likely to give in at some point and pay the fee as it's a pittance, and that's what they are relying on others to do.

But if people did stop buying (and they might, the recent EA example is a decent test) then perhaps developers would once again consider not nickle-diming us to death.

Yeah, that's not the way to bet. 

as I so often 'bet' yet again my stance is, we should wait until we get more information. it could go either way.

beebop500

Microtransactions are apparently just fine, if the gaming community's overwhelming acceptance of them (in general, of course) is any sort of benchmark.  I personally don't revile them so badly as some others, provided they don't allow direct access to progression.  I have the money to spend on them, so maybe that's easy for me to say, but still. 

I do think, though, that when the method to attain such things in-game is such an intimidating slog that the game essentially pushes you towards microtransactions out of frustration, there's a big problem, and I would not support such a model, either.  I have always spent money on games I enjoy, as a way of showing support to the game itself, and since I'm a costume lover I am satisfied with cosmetics.  That's not the case for everybody, and unfortunately I think the last couple of years have seen a real shift towards selling power and progression.

cameltosis

Kyleran said:

As the article defines micro-transactions as player recurring investment, or the sale of in-game items, DLC, season passes, and subscriptions, since developers are shifting increasing amounts of content out from the base game does it surprise anyone revenues from them are increasing?

In my example above, in Fallout NV the ability to make your own ammo was part of the core gameplay, in Fallout IV I have buy a $4.95 DLC to gain access to a module which includes a bunch of other content I don't really care about to do so.

As for complaining about it not impacting the bottom line, these are clever folks, I'm likely to give in at some point and pay the fee as it's a pittance, and that's what they are relying on others to do.

But if people did stop buying (and they might, the recent EA example is a decent test) then perhaps developers would once again consider not nickle-diming us to death.

Yeah, that's not the way to bet. 

It depends on whether a "better" developer / publisher can come up with a better model for monetisation. 

Microtransactions are a short sighted solution. They allow devs to get increased money out of a single game at the expense of alienating portions of their target market. With each successive game that gets released with microtransactions, the gaming market becomes increasingly aware that they are being delivered sub-par games that only get good once you've shelled out additional money. 

The long term consequence is reduced anticipation and reduced initial sales of games in the future. More and more people are willing to wait months / years for a sale that includes all DLC or simply reduced the price to something they think is the correct value. This waiting is made possible by the shear amount of games available to us across a vast array of platforms. 



The alternative (old) model is to package everything together for a single upfront cost, perhaps with expansions later. The first game will not make as much money as a first game with MTs, but the reception will be better. The second game will make more money. The developers build a reputation for delivering solid games with honest prices. This then helps them shift more and more boxes in the future, assuming they can continue making solid games. 


Another alternative model might be going back the original intention of free-to-play: breaking up a game into affordable chunks. So, can't afford £40 for the whole of SWBF2? No problem! Give us £10 to unlock the single player campaign. Give us £20 to unlock basic classes and maps in multiplayer. Give us another £5 to unlock all heroes. £10 to unlock arcade mode. That way, the barrier to entry is reduced (so more sales in general), players feel they're getting value for money on a timescale they control. The cost of buying everything separately is more than the bundle, so you can still make more than just a single price for the full game. Everything is transparent. 

immodium

DMKano said:

RPGForever said:g

The model of the future.

the model since 2013

I thought LOTRO introduced microtransactions as early as 2010 when it went F2P.

Scot

I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.

Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.

SEANMCAD

Scot said:

I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.

Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.

'cash shop apologists'?

seriously guys just play games that dont have it.

I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.

Kyleran

SEANMCAD said:

Scot said:

I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.

Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.

'cash shop apologists'?

seriously guys just play games that dont have it.

I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.

Apparently from the recent EA SW BF2 kerfuffle you actually can rant them into behaving better, you just need to bring a small army along with.

Will have to see if there's any lasting benefits.

SEANMCAD

Kyleran said:

SEANMCAD said:

Scot said:

I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.

Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.

'cash shop apologists'?

seriously guys just play games that dont have it.

I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.

Apparently from the recent EA SW BF2 kerfuffle you actually can rant them into behaving better, you just need to bring a small army along with.

Will have to see if there's any lasting benefits.

I dont think your following what I am getting at.

if you have rant micromanage each decision a developer makes the problem is the developer is not any good to begin with. A developer who is going to make a horrible decision such as this will likely have other horrible designs in the game.

That is what I am getting at, you cant FORCE an artist to be a good artist. you can only trim around the edges at best.

Its better to just not play these fucking games in the first place.

MadFrenchie

SEANMCAD said:

Kyleran said:

SEANMCAD said:

Scot said:

I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.

Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.

'cash shop apologists'?

seriously guys just play games that dont have it.

I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.

Apparently from the recent EA SW BF2 kerfuffle you actually can rant them into behaving better, you just need to bring a small army along with.

Will have to see if there's any lasting benefits.

I dont think your following what I am getting at.

if you have rant micromanage each decision a developer makes the problem is the developer is not any good to begin with. A developer who is going to make a horrible decision such as this will likely have other horrible designs in the game.

That is what I am getting at, you cant FORCE an artist to be a good artist. you can only trim around the edges at best.

Its better to just not play these fucking games in the first place.

The developer didn't make a horrible decision on gameplay, unless they're the ones that pitched the upgrade progression system idea in the first place.

I would bet good money (lootbox money!) The developer didn't really have a choice in the sort of progression system shoehorned into the game.  That likely came directly from the publisher.

postlarval

SEANMCAD said:

Scot said:

I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.

Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.

'cash shop apologists'?

seriously guys just play games that dont have it.

I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.

Bait...and...switch. 

Kyleran

Rhoklaw said:

Well, I for one know microtransactions don't work in my gaming history. I can't stand F2P and even some B2P games with their cash shops anymore. I would much rather pay a monthly subscription and not let my wallet determine my in-game success.

They've heard your plea, single player games now offer "season's passes," I'm guessing you are all over that right?