Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Yay another band wagon, all aboard!

You get free avatar sh!t as a reward for playing games. What's the problem? It'll be things like a witcher 3 t-shirt for your avatar given out when you play 200 hours. As if anyone gives a hoot about free avatar stuff anyway.

Korvanica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md5kb7lmdnQ

Mack gets extremely ranty here. It's fantastic. I do have to agree with him that the main drivers of all the lootbox and microtransactions are gamers who don't know whats happening to the games industry and only play 2-3 games a year.

Calling them idiots was a bit much but the point still stands true, game publishers look at the amount of money that these games bring in (Sports games mainly) and want a slice.

Benzino

Good video explaining that the cost of games has not increased since 2005, hence loot boxes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8

J. Marston

Activision Blizzard made $7 billion in net revenues last year with over $4 billion coming from microtransactions...

https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-blizzard-earned-more-than-4-billion-on-in-game-purchases-in-2017/

Crazy money.

Falthyron

J. Marston wrote: »

Activision Blizzard made $7 billion in net revenues last year with over $4 billion coming from microtransactions...

https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-blizzard-earned-more-than-4-billion-on-in-game-purchases-in-2017/

Crazy money.

Games are really expensive to make. Publishers are going out of business. Bobby Kotick can't buy his 3rd Gulfstream. AAA publishers need MTs and Lootboxes to cover their costs. It costs $2 billion alone to make maps and skins across a few games. /s

Etc., etc.

But, people will still continue to defend this practice.

SeantheMan

Falthyron wrote: »

But, people will still continue to defend this practice.

It exists because people still buy them. That is the only reason.
If they are making millions and billions from it they aren't going to suddenly stop.
You can vote with your wallet like everyone else.
However, everyone else doesn't seem to want to vote with their wallet.

You seen the complaints about Battlefront 2 which brought this whole thing to light...yet it still sold boatloads. MT's and Lootboxes are here to stay.


Also your post is a bit confusing as the first 2 parts are very true, but then it's mixed in with sarcasm etc...so it's hard to tell if you are being facetious or not.

marcbrophy

$2 billion of those MTX revenues came from King.
That's right, those candy crush pricks made $2 billion is revenue from people buying extra lives in 365 days! Makes me fcuking sick to be honest :mad:

On the flip side AVB bought King in 2015 for close to $6 billion, so it probably hasn't made any profit for the group yet! Here's hoping to a catastrophic year for King

SeantheMan

SeantheMan wrote: »

It exists because people still buy them. That is the only reason.
If they are making millions and billions from it they aren't going to suddenly stop.
You can vote with your wallet like everyone else.
However, everyone else doesn't seem to want to vote with their wallet.

You seen the complaints about Battlefront 2 which brought this whole thing to light...yet it still sold boatloads. MT's and Lootboxes are here to stay.


Also your post is a bit confusing as the first 2 parts are very true, but then it's mixed in with sarcasm etc...so it's hard to tell if you are being facetious or not.

It under-performed and missed it's sales targets

Investors directly blamed lootboxes & microtransactions and stated that the relationship with Disney has been damaged.

gizmo

Snarky nonsense aside, there's actually some positives to take from this in the general context of this topic, especially if you read through some of the arguments put forward in the thread so far.

Look at the core titles which have proven to be such high earners for the company.

Call of Duty - Zombie Chronicles, a map pack, was the #1 selling add-on on PSN in NA.

Destiny 2 - Curse of Osiris, a traditional expansion pack, had a better attach rate than The Dark Below for the first game in the series.

Overwatch - Cosmetic skins only.

Hearthstone - Additional card packs for this F2P game.

In short, unlike some of the titles discussed earlier from the likes of EA, Take2 and Warner Bros; there is no game, design or balance breaking content locked off behind unfair pay walls, excessive grinding or opaque lootbox systems in a full price AAA game. The exception being Hearthstone but that's fine because it's F2P.

So, yay Activision then, yes?

Benzino

marcbrophy wrote: »

$2 billion of those MTX revenues came from King.
That's right, those candy crush pricks made $2 billion is revenue from people buying extra lives in 365 days! Makes me fcuking sick to be honest :mad:

Why so mad, people choose to spend that money, they are not forced to do so.

SeantheMan

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It under-performed and missed it's sales targets

Investors directly blamed lootboxes & microtransactions and stated that the relationship with Disney has been damaged.

Yeah, but not by much. You'd expect a lot worse considering the furor , but no...people still went and bought it.

Today, EA CFO Blake Jorgensen shared some sales numbers with the Wall Street Journal alongside the company's earnings report, and it missed expectations, but not by much. The game was expected to sell 10 million copies but sold 9 million.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2018/01/30/ea-star-wars-battlefront-2-misses-sales-expectations/#467ffae27977

J. Marston

Hawaii have put forward a number of bills concerning lootboxes yesterday...

One pair of bills, House Bill 2686 and Senate Bill 3024, would prohibit the sale of any game featuring a system wherein players can purchase a randomized reward using real money to anyone younger than 21 years old.

The other two bills, House Bill 2727 and Senate Bill 3025, would require video game publishers to prominently label games containing such randomized purchase systems, as well as disclose the probability rates of receiving each loot box reward.

http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/2018/02/12/hawaii-news/bills-target-video-games-with-rewards-for-a-price/

Whether they pass or not, who knows, but it's good to see some government/lawmakers looking into it.

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

Why so mad, people choose to spend that money, they are not forced to do so.

If they have an addiction problem then they are.

marcbrophy

Benzino wrote: »

Why so mad, people choose to spend that money, they are not forced to do so.

Candy Crush is not a game, it's an experience designed to get you to spend money. The whole thing is insidious.

Benzino

M!Ck^ wrote: »

If they have an addiction problem then they are.

So who is to blame then?

marcbrophy wrote: »

Candy Crush is not a game, it's an experience designed to get you to spend money. The whole thing is insidious.

It is a game, a game designed to also make you spend money. Just like iTunes is a music service, a service designed to make you spend money. Pretty much everything you see in stores, on ads etc are designed to make you spend money in addition to whatever else they are designed for.

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

So who is to blame then?



It is a game, a game designed to also make you spend money. Just like iTunes is a music service, a service designed to make you spend money. Pretty much everything you see in stores, on ads etc are designed to make you spend money in addition to whatever else they are designed for.

The publishers creating predatory systems in their games that encourages / designed to guide you to purchasing of lootboxes and micro-transactions like Battlefront. I thought this was fairly clear from the get go.

marcbrophy

Benzino wrote: »

It is a game, a game designed to also make you spend money. Just like iTunes is a music service, a service designed to make you spend money. Pretty much everything you see in stores, on ads etc are designed to make you spend money in addition to whatever else they are designed for.

You are in no way wrong Benzino.
The thing is that now some people are fed up of these practices. They are standing up, or at least voicing their opinions on, how they feel these money grabbing ventures are ruining gaming for the majority of people who never ever EVER wanted to be part of this system.

Benzino

M!Ck^ wrote: »

The publishers creating predatory systems in their games that encourages / designed to guide you to purchasing of lootboxes and micro-transactions like Battlefront. I thought this was fairly clear from the get go.

I don't see how that forces you to spend money on it. Everything is designed to make you spend more, you can't walk down a street, watch tv, listen to the radio without something trying to get you to spend money. They are not forcing you to do so however.

marcbrophy wrote: »

You are in no way wrong Benzino.
The thing is that now some people are fed up of these practices. They are standing up, or at least voicing their opinions on, how they feel these money grabbing ventures are ruining gaming for the majority of people who never ever EVER wanted to be part of this system.

Which is a good thing in my opinion, people don't like the practice they should vote to change it. However, like the video I posted previously suggests, if loot boxes go something else will come in. The price of games has not increased despite the cost increasing. Hence why we have loot boxes. No loot boxes means something else will be introduced to cover the costs.

Which is perfectly fine and acceptable, as long as people are aware of this when they are voting against Loot boxes.

For the sake of it Benzi I won't retread old ground as I've shared my thoughts already so I will leave it at that.

What I would like to say is have a look at Monster Hunter World as an example of an excellent system that doesn't need the micro-transaction / lootbox ****e in it to work / be successful.

Benzino

M!Ck^ wrote: »

For the sake of it Benzi I won't retread old ground as I've shared my thoughts already so I will leave it at that.

What I would like to say is have a look at Monster Hunter World as an example of an excellent system that doesn't need the micro-transaction / lootbox ****e in it to work / be successful.

Fair enough, I just hope you express the same amount of anger towards your supermarket etc. when they use predatory tactics to force you to spend more money.

Benzino

Benzino wrote: »

Fair enough, I just hope you express the same amount of anger towards your supermarket etc. when they use predatory tactics to force you to spend more money.

I don't relate to that comparison. They are not mutually exclusive.

This explains why this game has done it's progress system right.

And here are the sales of this game so far. If you make a game right it doesn't need this crap attached to it.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/monster-hunter-world-sets-new-all-time-capcom-sale/1100-6456680/

Falthyron

SeantheMan wrote: »

It exists because people still buy them. That is the only reason.
If they are making millions and billions from it they aren't going to suddenly stop.
You can vote with your wallet like everyone else.
However, everyone else doesn't seem to want to vote with their wallet.

You seen the complaints about Battlefront 2 which brought this whole thing to light...yet it still sold boatloads. MT's and Lootboxes are here to stay.


Also your post is a bit confusing as the first 2 parts are very true, but then it's mixed in with sarcasm etc...so it's hard to tell if you are being facetious or not.

Apathy is the cause of this problem. I am directing my point about people defending this practice to people who are actively defending this practice and saying it is perfectly fine to 'enhance the experience' or 'give players choice'. The vast majority who take part in purchasing MTs and lootboxes do so because they don't see the harm and haven't really given it much thought. They might buy one or two every now and then, without much regard as to the other better systems available for supporting a game.

And no, my entire post is sarcasm apart from the final sentence. Games are not becoming more expensive to make, publishers are choosing to finance massive projects that require huge marketing budgets. Much like how they argue players are free to choose if they buy a lootbox, publishers are free to choose less risky projects to back, less financially demanding ones. If their project tanks, who should pay? The management or the players?

It all goes back to Steve Jobs' mantra. People don't know what they want, so you convince them they want something. We don't need massively inflated AAA budgets with equally large marketing campaigns featuring the latest famous actor doing a voice-over or eSports tournament funded by the players. Nobody is asking for any of this. We were perfectly content playing games like Half-Life 2, Thief, etc., without famous actors, adverts on TV and tournaments. Those games worked perfectly fine, became iconic titles, and made a lot of money. Everyone wins. For every AAA game that makes a profit, I can give you at least two indie developed games that also turned a profit. Most importantly for the player, if an indie title fails, it has less of an impact on the customer than a AAA one (see EA's reintroduction of MTs to Battlefront 2).

A world once existed without the need for MTs and lootboxes. If you look hard enough you can find plenty of excellent titles offering very similar experiences for a fraction of the price and without exploitative revenue streams. Games are only as expensive as the team mismanaging them and the difficulty marketing will have trying to convince you that you want this game.

Wait and see. Anthem (BioWare's big game) is going to be a fúcking mess, riddled in all sorts of revenue and grinding streams designed to justify its inflated budget. Then you can kiss goodbye to BioWare.

gizmo

Thief: The Dark Project, had a budget of $3m back in 1998.

Eight months before release Half-Life 2 had already cost Valve $40m back in 2004.

Once again, no one here is really defending the practice, Falthyron, we're just pointing out certain realities that are undeniable given the facts available.

uncleoswald

Benzino wrote: »

I don't see how that forces you to spend money on it. Everything is designed to make you spend more, you can't walk down a street, watch tv, listen to the radio without something trying to get you to spend money. They are not forcing you to do so however.

I was watching TV in the US recently, or trying too, and it reminded me of the micro-transaction debate.

I'd prefer to watch TV without advertisements altogether and do so when I can. However when I do watch TV from Ireland or the UK the advertisements don't ruin the show I am watching, they are a necessary evil that respect the show and the viewer, they get the balance right for the most part.

However advertisements in the US make TV near unwatchable. A half an hour show will have 5 ad breaks, they will skip the end credits and the next show will start immediately before going to another ad break as soon as the title card comes up. And worst of all on some channels many older shows that run 23 minutes as opposed to the now standard 21 are slightly sped up to fit in more ad breaks, I sh*t you not. It's all about balance and advertisements have ruined TV in the US in my eyes. And in my eyes the loot box system as implemented in games such Battlefront get the balance wrong and ruin the experience.

I have my doubts that for games such as Battlefront that EA need to charge more for their games to make money. FIFA was plenty profitable before Ultimate Team took off and created a massive and mostly untapped revenue stream and I suspect that EA's board members simply want to create a UT model in all of their games, it's like free money for them. However, if loot boxes and Micro-transactions are truly a necessary evil they need to be implemented better then in Battlefront.

gizmo wrote: »

Thief: The Dark Project, had a budget of $3m back in 1998.

Eight months before release Half-Life 2 had already cost Valve $40m back in 2004.

Once again, no one here is really defending the practice, Falthyron, we're just pointing out certain realities that are undeniable given the facts available.

That is much too small a sample size to get a true perspective. And yes the price of games has not gone up but the change to a digital distribution model should ensure that games companies get a much higher percentage of those profits now, plus they have almost killed off the much complained about re-sell market.

gizmo

uncleoswald wrote: »

That is much too small a sample size to get a true perspective. And yes the price of games has not gone up but the change to a digital distribution model should ensure that games companies get a much higher percentage of those profits now, plus they have almost killed off the much complained about re-sell market.

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to draw any statistical conclusion based upon those two examples alone, merely demonstrate to Falthyron that games we believe to have been created free from more modern budget bloating measures weren't necessarily. The fact that their respective budget increases lined up chronologically was just a bonus.

Falthyron

gizmo wrote: »

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to draw any statistical conclusion based upon those two examples alone, merely demonstrate to Falthyron that games we believe to have been created free from more modern budget bloating measures weren't necessarily. The fact that their respective budget increases lined up chronologically was just a bonus.

Half-Life 2 would have been considered a major AAA development at its time. With a 40m budget (52m adjusted for inflation today) it is still far short of Destiny's budget of 145m. This point, of course, is slightly off topic anyway, as I was initially arguing that AAA publishers choose to spend this amount of money. It is their burden to carry if it goes down badly. Perhaps, if publishers chose not to invest so heavily in risky opportunities they wouldn't need to find alternative and more exploitative forms of income.

Ultimately, if a AAA game fails, the customer will bear the brunt in that particular game or subsequent games. The publisher will aim to recover its money by asking for MTs or Lootboxes in another title among its catalogue. The reality is, if they want to learn a particular lesson from a failed endeavour then I suggest they look at themselves first. Who oversaw the project? Who decided on the budget? Where were the failures located? And adjust accordingly. Don't pass your mistakes and mismanagement costs down to the customer.

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

Half-Life 2 would have been considered a major AAA development at its time. With a 40m budget (52m adjusted for inflation today) it is still far short of Destiny's budget of 145m. This point, of course, is slightly off topic anyway, as I was initially arguing that AAA publishers choose to spend this amount of money. It is their burden to carry if it goes down badly. Perhaps, if publishers chose not to invest so heavily in risky opportunities they wouldn't need to find alternative and more exploitative forms of income.

Absolutely. Destiny would be a prime example of a game whose budget most definitely does suffer from some of that modern bloat. I very much agree with you in general on this point though, it's all about balance and it's quite evident that not every major title needs a mega-budget behind it. Without that budget, the need for these alternative revenue streams, whatever they may be, also disappears which is great. We've seen this happen more and more recently too as there's been a noticeable increase in mid-tier titles as indies grow larger and established studios seek less riskier scale projects, all great for the game playing public. That being said, there'll always be a place for the traditional blockbuster in the market and without a doubt, they'll also be the ones that generate the largest crowds, whether they're in line to buy it or to burn the place down because of what they've needed to do to get there.

Benzino

uncleoswald wrote: »

I was watching TV in the US recently, or trying too, and it reminded me of the micro-transaction debate.

I'd prefer to watch TV without advertisements altogether and do so when I can. However when I do watch TV from Ireland or the UK the advertisements don't ruin the show I am watching, they are a necessary evil that respect the show and the viewer, they get the balance right for the most part.

However advertisements in the US make TV near unwatchable. A half an hour show will have 5 ad breaks, they will skip the end credits and the next show will start immediately before going to another ad break as soon as the title card comes up. And worst of all on some channels many older shows that run 23 minutes as opposed to the now standard 21 are slightly sped up to fit in more ad breaks, I sh*t you not. It's all about balance and advertisements have ruined TV in the US in my eyes. And in my eyes the loot box system as implemented in games such Battlefront get the balance wrong and ruin the experience.

I have my doubts that for games such as Battlefront that EA need to charge more for their games to make money. FIFA was plenty profitable before Ultimate Team took off and created a massive and mostly untapped revenue stream and I suspect that EA's board members simply want to create a UT model in all of their games, it's like free money for them. However, if loot boxes and Micro-transactions are truly a necessary evil they need to be implemented better then in Battlefront.

I agree regarding better implementation, to me Overwatch is the gold standard and is the best implementation of it too date.

Yes, these games are making a ton of money, but that is due to players happily parting with their money for MT/Loot boxes. Can games make a profit without these? Of course, but all it takes is one bad game or a game to under perform and suddenly a studio is in trouble.