Microtransactions: Has Video Games Industry Gone Corrupt?

[FoRiZon]

Not sure where to put this. On one hand this correlates on technology. On the other hand this tied very closely with political and social issues.

Now, before i start, there are some Microtransaction (MT) games that are actually very good at that. GT6 maybe are too nice. Forza seems ok albeit tokens present. PvZ 2 are the prime example with MT that isnt obstruct gameplay.

However, these practices are growing like a tumor. Now, almost all of games feature MT, and many of them are cost so much it actually cost more than an average retail games, with usually $99.99 tops.

To make it even worse, there are many instances where if you didnt buy these, you cant literally progress further. This is prevalent on games like Kim Kardashian (cringeworthy popular), Dungeon Keepr mobile, many of point and click games, and more. And yes, This isnt a single purchase to win. You have to buy multiple times until its sufficient enough.

Sad thing is now even the fully retailed games is now following this path. Some even do the Disk Locked Content.

What do you think? Is our beloved video games industry nowadays has finally gone corrupt?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What do you think? Is our beloved video games industry nowadays has finally gone corrupt?

No, the market's changing. The game industry now is in a completely different place because of the way technology, interaction and communication have changed. Games companies can't rely making a big-hit that sells year-on-year, iteration-on-iteration, they need your money now... you might not be back tomorrow. Or even in an hour.

Making players buy game components in a 'piecemeal' fashion leads to players (potentially) spending more money to get in-game bonuses (little and often feels much cheaper) and then feeling more inclined to return and improve/up-rank.

If the games industry wasn't doing that then you'd likely pay even more for AAA titles; there'd be far less competition in a market where only the big-few could risk to invest in development.

Remember though, to make the piecemeal model work over and over you still have to make good games. Usually.

And DLC isn't Disk Locked Content, it's Down-Loadable Content. I look at games I've bought DLC for and I realise that even with some significant spending on some titles I've never paid more than a couple of pence per hour (at max) on any game I've loved.

 

[FoRiZon]

And DLC isn't Disk Locked Content, it's Down-Loadable Content. I look at games I've bought DLC for and I realise that even with some significant spending on some titles I've never paid more than a couple of pence per hour (at max) on any game I've loved.

Actually i know its downlodable. I just stir it up because some devs are doing that. One day launch with some of the content butchered and then sold it as "DLC"

 

[LeGeNd-1]

I agree.

Between microtransactions, "Season Passes", unlock all content and overpriced recycled DLCs the whole gaming industry is becoming more and more like a joke. Unfortunately people with more money than foresight DO keep buying these things, so I fear they are here to stay unless some lawmaker makes it illegal, or every gamer goes bankrupt.

I have no problem with paying for actual new DLCs that are created after the game is released, because these do cost time and money from the developers. But some devs are taking this way too far (EA and Codemasters come to mind). They are asking for exorbitantly high prices for "content" that requires next to no effort to make, and are merely being held back from the game so they can milk the game beyond its initial price. That is not business, that is just flat out scamming in broad daylight.

It's a shame because the gaming industry is getting stronger than ever, but they still have to resort to cheap tactics even though they can survive perfectly well without it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually i know its downlodable. I just stir it up because some devs are doing that. One day launch with some of the content butchered and then sold it as "DLC"

So to take the other side of the argument; you make cars. It costs you 7,500 to build a completely standard car (wind-up windows, cassette player) and you sell it for 10,000.

You think you can improve things and you design a car with electric windows and a CD player.

People complain because now your car isn't selling for 10,000, it's selling for 12,500 (you need to pay your R&D for the extra work and make a profit). So you sell the car for 10,000 and tell people that they can have the extras for 2,500.

People still complain because the wiring for the electric windows is already there, all you have to do is click one extra part into place. Same with the CD player, what a rip-off.

It's a shame because the gaming industry is getting stronger than ever, but they still have to resort to cheap tactics even though they can survive perfectly well without it.

But the tactics you describe are the very reason that more and more startups are able to invest in small/medium-scale development. It's how a lot of players want to play... if it wasn't then the model wouldn't be working.

What's your alternative?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If people want to pay more for content up-front, let them. It's their loss.

For example, ASSASSIN'S CREED IV has a set of pistol-swords, heavy armours and golden guns that are the best in the game. In order to get them, the player has to complete a series of lengthy (if not particularly challenging) side-quests, and so they're not accessible until the final stages of the game. Now, Ubisoft could have (but didn't) make them available through a microtransaction so that the player can have them from the start. And people probably would have paid. But more fool them - doing so would have taken a lot of the challenge out of the game.

 

[Liquid]

Define 'corrupt' in this case.

While I might not agree with, or enjoy, the direction the video game industry is heading, nothing they are doing is illegal and it is simply another revenue stream creation.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

But the tactics you describe are the very reason that more and more startups are able to invest in small/medium-scale development. It's how a lot of players want to play... if it wasn't then the model wouldn't be working.

What's your alternative?

Do it the old fashioned way. Make a great game, put everything they've got in it at release. Only add DLC if they make new content post-release, and sell them at an acceptable price. If the game is good enough people will flock to it. If not then too bad. Only the best survives in this tough world. The cream will always rise to the top. Instead we get mediocre developers pumping out iterations of their franchise year after year with no major improvements whatsoever. And pardon me if my memory is failing, but I recall a lot more startup developers in my PS1 days than today. Now it just seems like the same 3-4 devs that keeps releasing games year after year.

I understand that businesses need to survive, and their tactic isn't lawfully illegal per se. But the morality of the whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. It's just very sad that everything in the world today has to be so commercialized, including something that is supposed to give you fun and entertainment.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do it the old fashioned way. Make a great game, put everything they've got in it at release.

Okay, let's give it a go. How much have we got to spend, and how do we know we've got the money?

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Okay, let's give it a go. How much have we got to spend, and how do we know we've got the money?

That would vary from dev to dev. I'm not an accountant so I have no idea what the rough figures might be. But I think you get my point. You start off small and you build it up from there based on quality and reputation, instead of trying to shoot with the big boys from the start by scamming your customers.

At the end of the day, the only people hurt by microtransactions are the gamers. It might feel alright now, but I only have to look back 5 years to Burnout Paradise' DLC and compare it with Grid Autosport's DLC to see how bad things have become. It won't be sustainable in the future and again, the only losers will be the gamers.

 

[Joel]

I didn't vote because the wording is confusing. If I vote agree, Does it mean I agree with microtransactions as a concept, or does it mean I agree that they're a sign of a corrupt gaming industry?

Bottom line is you have to vote with your wallet. I don't really play games that have pay to win microtransactions, and I don't buy DLC or pay for microtransactions in most cases. The only game I've spent a significant amount of money on microtransactions for is Dota 2. I don't have an issue with microtransactions in Dota 2 because they're entirely optional, you get no competitive egde by using them, and I like getting a cool cosmetic set for my favourite heroes. The other part is that with certain sets or other microtransactions a part of the purchase price goes towards funding the prize pool of pro tournaments, which is how the biggest Dota 2 tournament this year ended up with a prize pool over nearly $11M, and $5M for the winning team. I think that's a really cool way to handle microtransactions, and it motivated me to buy certain things that I probably otherwise wouldn't have because I think it's pretty awesome that a team can win $5M from a Dota tournament.

At the end of the day, the only people hurt by microtransactions are the gamers. It might feel alright now, but I only have to look back 5 years to Burnout Paradise' DLC and compare it with Grid Autosport's DLC to see how bad things have become. It won't be sustainable in the future and again, the only losers will be the gamers.

I'm not sure why you'd say it's unsustainable. Perhaps on a small scale certain games that purely rely on it will go under, but I don't think DLC and microtransactions as a business model are going anywhere unless people decide to stop buying them which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon. For all the crap the internet gives to EA and Activision, they sure do enjoy paying them $60 a pop 2 or 3 times a year plus $10 each for map packs. If you think it provides you value, buy it. If developers think they'll turn a profit on it, they'll keep doing it.

And if you feel "hurt" by microtransactions, don't buy them. Don't buy games that have microtransactions. If you want to tell a developer that you won't accept it, don't give them your money. They don't care if people are complaining about it on the internet if they keep paying every time a new game comes out. I guess I just don't get this idea that gamers are "hurt" by this. We don't have a divine right to reasonably priced video games. If you think the prices are out of hand, don't buy the games. It's really not about principles here, it's about economics.

I guess I just don't get the elevated language this discussion always takes on. People talk about being "hurt", "insulted", or whatever by publishers. Just don't buy the games if it really bothers you so much. I don't buy Call of Duty games anymore because they got stale, and Activision no longer gets $60 a year from me. I'm not really convinced that people are all that "hurt" if they keep paying for the games and microtransactions.

 

[BobK]

The OP sums up quite well why I'm nowheres near as much into games as I have been in the past.

Oh, and nobody's forcing you to buy any of these microtransaction things. If enough people stopped buying, they'd stop the practice soon enough.

 

[Imari]

There's also a difference between Free to Play games, where microtransactions are either the major or only way that the developer is making a profit, and microtransactions in "normal" games where they're presumably just icing on the cake.

Buy a game if you think it's worth your money without any extra DLC. Buy the DLC if you think it's worth your money (or if you want to fling more money at the devs or whatever).

I honestly don't see the problem.

There are issues with developers designing games to explicitly push people towards microtransactions, but that's just terrible game design (except in F2P obviously, where it's a given). It's not anything innately wrong with microtransactions. If these devs weren't able to abuse microtransactions, they'd be abusing some other facet of game design to try and score a quick buck.

The short answer is don't buy bad games. There are many ways to make a bad game, and abusive use of microtransactions is just another in a long, long list.

 

[Brend]

DLC shouldn't be integrated heavily into a game's UI or economy. Games like Forza and Mario Kart which literally put the locked content as an 'option*' even when you don't own the content is ridiculous. Just fills the car lists/track lists with rubbish.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I've no problem with paying a reasonable amount for new content, I think it's a risky path to introduce a system where you have to pay to progress through the game, and I think when the likes of EA are probably making billions, from nothing, I can't believe it will ever be done in the best interest of gamers.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't mind MT as long as they aren't a must buy to properly enjoy the game AND as long as they aren't unreasonably expensive.

More content it's always nice. If it doesn't appeal to me, I simply don't buy it.

Also, I think it's a pretty "low blow" to sell a game in day 1 and "offer" a DLC with content that should already be included in base price.

 

[Northstar]

I really don't have a problem with microtransactions as long as they are optional(i.e. shortcuts, cosmetic items etc...) or the game was free to start with.

It won't be sustainable in the future and again, the only losers will be the gamers.

To be fair, the gamers have brought it on themselves to a certain extent as they will usually buy the DLC no matter what is in it. It's like complaining that a sandwich shop charges for cheese, than proceeding to buy the cheese anyways.

 

[huskeR32]

So far, most of the games I'm interested in that have DLC eventually release a "Game of the Year Edition," "Complete Edition," "Deluxe Edition," etc. that includes all DLC, and is usually pretty affordable. For example, I picked up editions of Bioshock 1&2, Assassin's Creed II, Red Dead Redemption, and GTA IV, all bundled with all of their DLC, all for $20 or less.

Unless it's really important to you to play a game right when it comes out (It's definitely not important to me, I've got a good 3 years of PS3 games to play yet ), you can usually count on getting the whole bundle later for a very reasonable price.

 

[VolkswagenX]

I don't see It as corrupt but I don't like it either. The only DLC I ever bought was for Dark Souls (will get DS II DLC soon), GT5 and the DLC that came with the virtua fighter bundle. The Dark Souls DLC is the only one that I thought was worth my money.

I also don't believe these developers need to sell DLC to survive, they need to make more original games.

 

[Danoff]

I got pretty upset with Blizzard over the Diablo 3 expansion. Here they had a game that was forced to be online for all players. They then torpedoed original game with the expansion pack, such that you could no longer effectively play mutiplayer unless you bought the expansion. They did this by destroying popular character builds (by eliminating skills that the builds relied upon to work) and simultaneously offering better builds through the expansion pack.

So you'd spent time building a character with gear that you liked, and they came in and said "haha, we broke it, buy the expansion if you want to have fun again". I felt that the diablo 3 players could file a class action over that behavior, but ultimately I just bought the expansion and started playing it and love it. It's a much better game with the expansion. So oh well.

 

[niky]

I recall a lot more startup developers in my PS1 days than today. Now it just seems like the same 3-4 devs that keeps releasing games year after year.

Games cost money to make. With next generation systems having so much more speed and resolution, you need more manpower to make each game.

In the old days, a small crew of three to five people could probably punt out a reasonably decent game... no need for stirring orchestral scores or sound tracks...

Nowadays, you'll be spending tens of millions on a game... what with motion capture, texture mapping, sound development and studio time. Just the basic programming manpower alone will cost you a few million dollars.

Which is why those start-up developers aren't making big-arse high-resolution multi-gigabyte console games.

They're programming browser and smartphone/tablet games. Why waste tens of millions making something that's going to tank in sales when the next GTA comes out, when a single programmer can build Flappy Bird and get millions of downloads with no trouble... or when a small programming team can make something like Plants Versus Zombies on a shoestring budget... and gain commercial and merchandising success that most console games don't?

Want to see where all the neat games and ideas are coming from? Look at the pick-up and play market.

But the morality of the whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. It's just very sad that everything in the world today has to be so commercialized, including something that is supposed to give you fun and entertainment.

Mind you... we're talking about console games that cost a lot of money to make. Money which they need to make back, through any means possible. Even those "locked" items cost a lot to develop. Just because it's already programmed, doesn't oblige them to give it away to you for free.

It's not like we're talking about MMORPGs and other MMO-type games where custom sprites and unique items are a major source of income... where developers simply churn out new items with minimal programming time and sell boatloads of them to players through microtransactions. Had a nice chat with a manager for one of those businesses a few months ago... lucrative business, that!

 

[LeGeNd-1]

The excuse of "If you don't like it, don't buy it" doesn't agree with me. I want to enjoy these games and I want to support the developers that make them, but at some point it just becomes too much and the balance tips over. You feel bad if you buy them because you feel cheated and you're encouraging bad business. You feel bad if you don't buy them because you miss out on the full experience.

I just miss the old style of simple gaming where everything is on the disc from day 1. It's hard to enjoy the fun when you are constantly being "forced" (subconsciously) to spend money for not so much gains. But the world is different now. Probably it's time for me to leave gaming for good

 

[Imari]

The excuse of "If you don't like it, don't buy it" doesn't agree with me. I want to enjoy these games and I want to support the developers that make them, but at some point it just becomes too much and the balance tips over. You feel bad if you buy them because you feel cheated and you're encouraging bad business. You feel bad if you don't buy them because you miss out on the full experience.

Cupcake generation.

The games are what they are. I don't know why you'd want to enjoy a game that's got an abusive microtransaction scheme at the heart of it, and I don't know why you'd want to support developers that would make such a game. Maybe you're a masochist.

There's valid complaints to be had about misleading advertising and such, because then you can't make a reasonable judgement of whether the game would be worth your money without buying it. But if you've got decent information on what the MT scheme is like in game and you still buy it, you get no sympathy from me.

Probably it's time for me to leave gaming for good

It probably is if you're not willing to exercise some restraint and discrimination in how you spend your money. If you just buy stuff hoping that it'll be what you want, you're gonna have a bad time.

 

[niky]

The excuse of "If you don't like it, don't buy it" doesn't agree with me. I want to enjoy these games and I want to support the developers that make them, but at some point it just becomes too much and the balance tips over. You feel bad if you buy them because you feel cheated and you're encouraging bad business. You feel bad if you don't buy them because you miss out on the full experience.

I just miss the old style of simple gaming where everything is on the disc from day 1. It's hard to enjoy the fun when you are constantly being "forced" (subconsciously) to spend money for not so much gains. But the world is different now. Probably it's time for me to leave gaming for good

If you don't like it...

The older you get, the more you come to prefer things the way they were back when you were younger.

Things change. Either you're flexible enough to change with them, or find something new. Or give your money to people who make what you do want.

That's precisely the same issue with cars. People say they want one thing... and when Toyota finally builds it (the GT86), not enough people buy it to ensure the manufacturer will make a second generation.

I also think there's a bit of rose-colored glasses in the way you see things. With old games on consoles... what you bought was what you got. Limited content. Any glitches in the game were there to stay. No additional levels after you finished what was there. No chance to upgrade buggy controls or fix game physics. If you wanted an expansion pack, you had to go out and buy a physical CD (for PC games) or simply buy a new copy of the game (for consoles) at full price.

I'm no longer an active gamer... but when I do play (mostly mobile games, because I'm on the road a lot), there's so much free content floating around, supported by microtransactions, free/premium payment models and donation supported freeware... I don't actually have to spend anything to get my quick fix.

And when I do want to get into GT6... I can just wait for a Platinum or "GOTY" edition pack with all the add-ons, as @huskeR32 alluded to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That would vary from dev to dev. I'm not an accountant so I have no idea what the rough figures might be. But I think you get my point. You start off small and you build it up from there based on quality and reputation, instead of trying to shoot with the big boys from the start by scamming your customers.

At the end of the day, the only people hurt by microtransactions are the gamers. It might feel alright now, but I only have to look back 5 years to Burnout Paradise' DLC and compare it with Grid Autosport's DLC to see how bad things have become. It won't be sustainable in the future and again, the only losers will be the gamers.

@niky has already summed it up; the baseline is that content costs manhours. Let's say you get away with paying $100 per-hour per-person (you won't get that low by the way, not with all the costs involved with finding, employing and equipping anyone).

How many people will you need to design the game structure? Create the sound, score, and artwork? Code the game? Create the graphics? Produce the first working version? Multi device/platform testing? Do the legal stuff? Documentation? Final production? Final testing? Distribution? Make the adverts?

I'd say that a really good established team-of-5 could do that in 5 weeks for a small-scale game, or 1,000 hours. A thousand hours sounds a lot in one block... but it really isn't. So it's cost you $100,000 to get your small game in the app stores, on the sidebars, in the public's faces.

How much are you selling it for?

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Cupcake generation.

The games are what they are. I don't know why you'd want to enjoy a game that's got an abusive microtransaction scheme at the heart of it, and I don't know why you'd want to support developers that would make such a game. Maybe you're a masochist.

There's valid complaints to be had about misleading advertising and such, because then you can't make a reasonable judgement of whether the game would be worth your money without buying it. But if you've got decent information on what the MT scheme is like in game and you still buy it, you get no sympathy from me.



It probably is if you're not willing to exercise some restraint and discrimination in how you spend your money. If you just buy stuff hoping that it'll be what you want, you're gonna have a bad time.

No, I do not buy microtransaction type content. Ever. I have self restraint thank you very much. And if the next game in the franchise is known to have MTs then I skip it entirely.

Having said that, I cannot say that I'm entirely happy to be missing out on new content either. But by not supporting MTs I'm hoping that we could see a future without them. Short term loss for long term gain. That's the idea anyway. Might be wishful thinking, but it's the way I justify it to myself.

In any case, my gaming activities have been dwindling over the last few years anyway. If the new generation likes MTs then more power to them. But I'm not gonna be supporting these companies anymore. It's been a great journey for the past 16 years, but it's the end of the road for me.

I wish things could be different, but if not there's no loss for me as well. It is what it is.

@niky has already summed it up; the baseline is that content costs manhours. Let's say you get away with paying $100 per-hour per-person (you won't get that low by the way, not with all the costs involved with finding, employing and equipping anyone).

How many people will you need to design the game structure? Create the sound, score, and artwork? Code the game? Create the graphics? Produce the first working version? Multi device/platform testing? Do the legal stuff? Documentation? Final production? Final testing? Distribution? Make the adverts?

I'd say that a really good established team-of-5 could do that in 5 weeks for a small-scale game, or 1,000 hours. A thousand hours sounds a lot in one block... but it really isn't. So it's cost you $100,000 to get your small game in the app stores, on the sidebars, in the public's faces.

How much are you selling it for?

For a small game like that, probably around $10 is reasonable. So you need 10k copies sold to break even. Probably double that to make it profitable. I think 20k sales should be doable if you have a solid game.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, I do not buy microtransaction type content. Ever. I have self restraint thank you very much. And if the next game in the franchise is known to have MTs then I skip it entirely.

Having said that, I cannot say that I'm entirely happy to be missing out on new content either. But by not supporting MTs I'm hoping that we could see a future without them. Short term loss for long term gain. That's the idea anyway. Might be wishful thinking, but it's the way I justify it to myself.

In any case, my gaming activities have been dwindling over the last few years anyway. If the new generation likes MTs then more power to them. But I'm not gonna be supporting these companies anymore. It's been a great journey for the past 16 years, but it's the end of the road for me.

For a small game like that, probably around $10 is reasonable. So you need 10k copies sold to break even. Probably double that to make it profitable. I think 20k sales should be doable if you have a solid game.

Let's rewind 8 weeks. I have $100,000 to invest, you tell me you can bring a game to market for that much. You promise it will be a solid game. I have some questions;

Are you sure you can sell it for a one-off fee of $9.99 in the current market?

Have you figured your sales taxes in?

How much should I ask for out of the profits of your game? Bear in mind that $100,000 of what you bank is mine and I expect an additional return.

What should I do if I give you the money but you only sell 8,500 because a competitor suddenly (and completely coincidentally) launches the Next Big Thing which is similar-to-our-game-but-better? You've only got $85,000 in the bank before sales taxes.

 

[niky]

If we're talking games that cheap to develop, and without a marketing budget you'll be lucky to hit 100k downloads... and if you're charging $10 up front without giving something away for free to entice new users, not even that. There's a big reason many start-ups sell ad space on their apps!

Good read:

http://fueled.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-an-app/

$100k isn't enough... and we're talking simple apps. Not games. If you want marketing and a social media push... that will cost you much, much more.

Or, if you're good at programming, you can make your own. Gameplay is everything... and making a cheap game with great gameplay can sometimes open the door to better things. Or not. There are dozens of hit games that haven't earned their programmers squat.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Good read @niky 👍 I forgot about ads. I have no problem against them so they're a good source of extra revenue. I don't think I've seen console games ever having ads though (besides product placements).

@TenEightyOne Well there you go, it seems $100k isn't really enough for a game these days so it's bound to fail from the start. Instead of using hypotheticals, why don't we just take a look at a real life example: thatgamecompany (I'm using it because I don't have much experience with non-racing games from small devs).

They started off with less than 10 people, making a free game for their college degree. Then they got contracted with Sony on a 3 game deal. All of them were pretty successful without resorting to MTs or DLCs. After the deal with Sony expired they have been in limbo trying to get a backer, but recently they have received $7 million funding from Capital Today. Who knows if that's enough for next gen, but they certainly have succeeded with those 3 games to establish a solid fanbase and recognition. Not AAA levels, but for a small group starting from nothing they're doing pretty good.

So it's difficult being a small startup company, and only 1 in 1000 would probably make it to make a second game. But it can be done without resorting to cheap tricks if you have a really solid game.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So it's difficult being a small startup company, and only 1 in 1000 would probably make it to make a second game. But it can be done without resorting to cheap tricks if you have a really solid game.

So you need to either be very very lucky or make sure you sell more... and you sell more by having a very cheap starting price... and where does the rest of the money come from?

Much as you may dislike the model it's a function of the current market and reflects that a considerable section of the market isn't interested in $50 AAA spending (or play length) any more.

You'll always be able to name rare exceptions who have a big profitable hit, much easier than naming the 95% of titles that sank without trace.