Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

ShadowHearth

Okay, to make money, you spend money. Developers of tripple A games cry about massive costs of games, but they forget to mention that their earning sky rocketed with it too. A good tripple A game pays for itself very damn fast.
If they make bad game, that they spent millions, then its their own fault as they clearly made a **** game or overestimated demand for that particular game. These big game development companies treat gaming like business, so dont be surprised if your investment burned to ash. No sympathy for them.

What is annoying now that tripple dipping in cookie jar is a new standard. Sell game for 60 quid, charge full season pass and add loot boxes on top off that.
I miss the times where free to play games and full priced games were separated creatures. Now it feels more and more that we paying double the price for F2P games.

Saruhashi

I think it's worth looking into the budgets invested in games compared to the potential profits made in the event of a complete success or failure.

I'd like to see someone like Jim Sterling go into that just to see what kind of risks these companies are taking on when they commit to a game.

Sure, a brilliant AAA game will make a ton of money but what does a complete failure look like and what are the consequences?

Where does the investment for these games come from and are investors aware of the potential profits from lootboxes and microtransactions?

I'm trying to imagine what it looks like for a developer being paid to develop a game and how investors will be looking at the money situation.

The money to make the game has to come from somewhere right? So what can you do if a condition of securing that investment in the project is that the project must have options for more revenue streams?

_CreeD_

I thought this was a pretty good financial analysis by Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/02/13/here-are-3-reasons-why-video-games-should-actually-cost-less-than-60/#2dd9ff7b2977

ShadowHearth

_CreeD_ wrote: »

I thought this was a pretty good financial analysis by Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/02/13/here-are-3-reasons-why-video-games-should-actually-cost-less-than-60/#2dd9ff7b2977

One thing that I checked last night: the share prices of some of these big publishers in the last 5 years. They are not just doubled in value, they went up all the way several times. In EA example its more then 10 times!!!

So clearly they are making a lot of money, but still have balls going out to public with a tin bowl and saddest orphan look: "Please, sir, can I have more, because game development costs more these days."

If they are tripple dipping in to that cookie jar, then start selling these games for 30 quid, or put them on services like xbox game pass day one.

gizmo

_CreeD_ wrote: »

I thought this was a pretty good financial analysis by Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2018/02/13/here-are-3-reasons-why-video-games-should-actually-cost-less-than-60/#2dd9ff7b2977

To take each point individually...

Video games rarely actually cost $60 to begin with, once you factor everything in.
Firstly, each of the games listed in that example function completely fine without the additional elements. They are not required to get a "complete experience" since they would arguably be worth their retail price (with perhaps the exception of the content light vanilla Destiny which has already been noted by most people who have played the game) in their own right without the additional content. The mere existence of this content doesn't affect this. Said additional content is then sold for additional money which is perfectly reasonable.

Digital distribution drastically lowers costs for publishers and essentially kills off the used game market.
Depends what you mean by drastically. Going by a slide from the latest Ubisoft Investor report, which appears to be the first time we've seen these kinds of figures from a major publisher, the saving on digital distribution works out at approximately 27% in real terms.

The second hand market is definitely a factor too but how much is still unknown and will probably be impossible to accurately measure.

More expensive games could scare away players.
This isn't really a point in itself. Yes, expensive games have the potential to scare away players. They most certainly cause pushback as was evident when the RRP increased last generation though. In any case, all of the measures being discussed are being implemented so as to avoid this problem in the first place.

SolvableKnave

US senator challenges ESRB to clamp down on loot boxes

Separately, in a Q&A session with nominees for the post of commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission, senator Hassan suggested that if the ESRB fails to take action against loot boxes, the US government, via the FTC, could step in.

TheBoyFromAus

You can't help but applaud the Overwatch team for their approach to micro transactions and continued game support. The amount of free new content they provide supported only by the existing coffers and purely cosmetic micro transactions is fantastic. Much better than being forced to buy 'map packs' and **** if you wish to experience more of the game.

Generic Dreadhead

Yong Yea really has a hard-on for continually sh!tting on Destiny 2 in videos where it's a bit of a reach in the point he's trying to make.
Clearly riding the negative hype train and looking at what he can rip off from other YouTube Game Critics.
I'm no big fan of Destiny 2 and the relevant shady practices and overall gameplay loop/reward issues
But I went from liking his stuff a lot to just finding him a populist click-hungry, bitter fu€kwit.

TheBoyFromAus wrote: »

The amount of free new content they provide supported only by the existing coffers and purely cosmetic micro transactions is fantastic

The money they make from physical merch and charging $1mil to enter a OWL team probably isn't anything to be sneezed at either.

gizmo

"The above covers full-price titles, but there’s also free-to-play territory. Here we have GWENT, where you can buy card kegs and some vanity items. Again, the deal is simple—you can play the game for free and craft your desired card collection this way, or decide to spend money and get card kegs. The choice is yours, and the only thing you pay for is time and convenience."

Bit surprised that both Yongyea and the interviewer at PC Gamer let Iwiński away with this, doubly so in the case of the former given the title of his video.

Benzino

TheBoyFromAus wrote: »

You can't help but applaud the Overwatch team for their approach to micro transactions and continued game support. The amount of free new content they provide supported only by the existing coffers and purely cosmetic micro transactions is fantastic. Much better than being forced to buy 'map packs' and **** if you wish to experience more of the game.

The best implementation of it too date, it's why Blizzard are one of the best in the business.

Kirby

Benzino wrote: »

The best implementation of it too date, it's why Blizzard are one of the best in the business.

They are....but they aren't without sin. They've made mistakes.

The real-money auction house in Diablo 3 essentially killed the playerbase after the second month. They reversed it and the game is much the better for it but the damage was done.

Hearthstone is a terrible value proposition too when it comes to their packs(loot boxes). You have to spend at least 200 quid per expansion to get most of the cards.

With Heroes of the Storm they recently sectioned off certain skins meaning you could only buy them with real money. Why? Because people werent spending money on them. They were using the ingame currency to buy them. So they just arbitrarily made them only purchasable with money. It didn't go down well.

Lets not kid ourselves. I love blizzard games too but Activision/Blizzard is just as money hungry as the rest of them.

Benzino

Kirby wrote: »

They are....but they aren't without sin. They've made mistakes.

The real-money auction house in Diablo 3 essentially killed the playerbase after the second month. They reversed it and the game is much the better for it but the damage was done.

Hearthstone is a terrible value proposition too when it comes to their packs(loot boxes). You have to spend at least 200 quid per expansion to get most of the cards.

With Heroes of the Storm they recently sectioned off certain skins meaning you could only buy them with real money. Why? Because people werent spending money on them. They were using the ingame currency to buy them. So they just arbitrarily made them only purchasable with money. It didn't go down well.

Lets not kid ourselves. I love blizzard games too but Activision/Blizzard is just as money hungry as the rest of them.

I wasn't aware of the real money auction house in Diablo 3, the game really didn't do much for me unfortunately so haven't played it much once I completed it. I'm not opposed to real-money transactions for auction house items, as people sink a lot of time into collecting rare loot, I think it can be good that they are rewarded for that effort. But it's a difficult balancing act, which seems nobody has managed yet.

But you can earn those cards organically, right? If that is the case, I think having a high price point is not too bad otherwise most people will just go and buy them all straight away.

I don't play Hero's of the Storm, but that sounds like a pretty lame move. Surely they could have just increased the in-game currency cost for them.

No doubt they are money hungry, all for profit companies all, it's their reason for existing.

TheBoyFromAus

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Yong Yea really has a hard-on for continually sh!tting on Destiny 2 in videos where it's a bit of a reach in the point he's trying to make.
Clearly riding the negative hype train and looking at what he can rip off from other YouTube Game Critics.
I'm no big fan of Destiny 2 and the relevant shady practices and overall gameplay loop/reward issues
But I went from liking his stuff a lot to just finding him a populist click-hungry, bitter fu€kwit.



The money they make from physical merch and charging $1mil to enter a OWL team probably isn't anything to be sneezed at either.

Fun fact, I had no idea they were charging that much for OWL.

OptimusTractor

I don't understand the pass Overwatch is getting. A lot of the skins created are fairly class. So people are going to spend real money to get what they want instead of waiting for ingame RNG. Sure there's no playing advantage but I find it just as bad.

A young lad of one the women I work with wanted 100 Overwatch lootboxes for Christmas.

marcbrophy

OptimusTractor wrote: »

I don't understand the pass Overwatch is getting. A lot of the skins created are fairly class. So people are going to spend real money to get what they want instead of waiting for ingame RNG. Sure there's no playing advantage but I find it just as bad.

A young lad of one the women I work with wanted 100 Overwatch lootboxes for Christmas.

Overwatch doesn't get a pass for everyone.
We're just sick of getting back the whole "It's just cosmetic" rhetoric that AVB has implanted in their followers heads.

It's just as cancerous as any other post launch monetisation scheme

gizmo

OptimusTractor wrote: »

I don't understand the pass Overwatch is getting. A lot of the skins created are fairly class. So people are going to spend real money to get what they want instead of waiting for ingame RNG. Sure there's no playing advantage but I find it just as bad.

A young lad of one the women I work with wanted 100 Overwatch lootboxes for Christmas.

So what'd be your preferred solution? Just offer the skins for real money directly, removing the need for lootboxes?

SolvableKnave

gizmo wrote: »

So what'd be your preferred solution? Just offer the skins for real money directly, removing the need for lootboxes?

How about allowing them to be purchased directly with in game currency earned through playing the game and nothing more?

kunst nugget

gizmo wrote: »

So what'd be your preferred solution? Just offer the skins for real money directly, removing the need for lootboxes?

That would be preferable to the cancer that is paid for loot boxes.

gizmo

SolvableKnave wrote: »

How about allowing them to be purchased directly with in game currency earned through playing the game and nothing more?

On the basis that the creation of "fairly class" skins isn't free and assuming the base game ships with enough content to justify its initial price tag, there's no reason why they shouldn't be compensated for additional content added post-release.

kunst nugget wrote: »

That would be preferable to the cancer that is paid for loot boxes.

Yup, I'd most definitely agree.

TheBoyFromAus

marcbrophy wrote: »

Overwatch doesn't get a pass for everyone.
We're just sick of getting back the whole "It's just cosmetic" rhetoric that AVB has implanted in their followers heads.

It's just as cancerous as any other post launch monetisation scheme

I dont know what Andre Villas Boas has to do with this, but I like the idea that a purely cosmetic monetisation means you can experience the full game engine, maps, add-ons and other functionality without additional spending. While loot boxes is still not the right move, its much better than what you get with most games etc. The Call of Duty franchise now is mental, they make an absolute killing on initial release, they have map pack add ons AND loot boxes. Its the ultimate money grubbing trifecta.

Overwatch also responded to the number of duplicates etc coming up so now that if you do purchase loot boxes, you are more likely to get a new item.

OptimusTractor

gizmo wrote: »

So what'd be your preferred solution? Just offer the skins for real money directly, removing the need for lootboxes?

Only if I can use your card lad.

ShadowHearth

marcbrophy wrote: »

Overwatch doesn't get a pass for everyone.
We're just sick of getting back the whole "It's just cosmetic" rhetoric that AVB has implanted in their followers heads.

It's just as cancerous as any other post launch monetisation scheme

Blizzard was one of my favourite devs. I started with gems like Lost Vikings on Sega, then Starcraft and even warcraft 2 on ps1!!!
They were always known for the great expansions, you would get a really good chunk of content with each of them, even when all industry got on dlc wagon. Unfortunately now, Blizzard is pretty much a leader at micro transactions and loot boxes.
I will say at least one thing to its defence. At least blizzard us not triple dipping in to cookie jar with overwatch. They are not selling you full game, season pass and loot boxes. Its a game and loot boxes with constant updates.

Generic Dreadhead

Casual. I started with Warcraft 1 :P

Given Overwatch is offering the below, I'm ok with them having a stream for continuous monetisation that doesn't split the player base

• Good network experience (servers via Destiny peer to peer)
• 4-5 full heroes (at this stage)
• Some 8(?) seasonal events often with their own game mode and loot
• New overall game modes (FFA, Elimination) being added
• 5 new (all mode) maps
• 6 specific mode maps

The only alternative I would see is a monthly subscription charge (maybe coupled with making the game FTP) but given you can get the base game for €40 and have received all of the above since for free, I'm alright with that.

I do think 3000 is a bit much for some skins, and thats coming from someone with a lot of time played and still struggling to grind that kind of money. But they are a business.

If there was a league table of Top 5 Companies who are utter sneaky greedy $hits I would not have the Blizzard part of Activistion/Blizzard on it.

Potential-Monke

gizmo wrote: »

On the basis that the creation of "fairly class" skins isn't free and assuming the base game ships with enough content to justify its initial price tag, there's no reason why they shouldn't be compensated for additional content added post-release.

They can be, when they release paid DLC that's worth it. CDPR have it right. Free cosmetic stuff for everyone, paid DLC that actually adds to the base game.

How about win your audience with decent games and free cosmetic items, and if it's done right, you will have repeat customers for future releases. I'll be picking up Cyberpunk 2077 on launch, and if there's a season pass of sorts, I'll probably buy that also, because CDPR have won my trust that they are for the gamers rather than the shareholders.

gizmo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

They can be, when they release paid DLC that's worth it. CDPR have it right. Free cosmetic stuff for everyone, paid DLC that actually adds to the base game.

How about win your audience with decent games and free cosmetic items, and if it's done right, you will have repeat customers for future releases. I'll be picking up Cyberpunk 2077 on launch, and if there's a season pass of sorts, I'll probably buy that also, because CDPR have won my trust that they are for the gamers rather than the shareholders.

That's all totally fine but it doesn't apply to Overwatch. The meaningful additional content that adds to the base game - characters, maps and game modes - are all given away for free which leaves cosmetics as their only potential means of offering paid DLC.

So the question remains, if you remove loot boxes as a means of rewarding those skins, what do you realistically replace it with?

Potential-Monke

gizmo wrote: »

That's all totally fine but it doesn't apply to Overwatch. The meaningful additional content that adds to the base game - characters, maps and game modes - are all given away for free which leaves cosmetics as their only potential means of offering paid DLC.

So the question remains, if you remove loot boxes as a means of rewarding those skins, what do you realistically replace it with?

A fun and entertaining game that will support itself.

gizmo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

A fun and entertaining game that will support itself.

Well yea, they've nailed the first two so again, the question is how it supports itself.

I mean, "with a continuous stream of free content post release" is certainly an answer, I just don't think it's a particularly viable one in the longer term.

Falthyron

gizmo wrote: »

Well yea, they've nailed the first two so again, the question is how it supports itself.

I mean, "with a continuous stream of free content post release" is certainly an answer, I just don't think it's a particularly viable one in the longer term.

Make good cosmetic content people are willing to pay for? Its simple market mechanics. If people want it, they will pay for it. Nobody wants a lottery system and nobody wants shít cosmetic content. In fact, if they sold cosmetic content directly to the customer it would do their metrics the world of good, enabling them to be more on-point when it comes to the type of cosmetics people enjoy. I'm sure many people play Overwatch characters with any old skin they got in a box, but it doesn't mean its the skin they actually want.

As for the need for a game to support itself? What happened in the early 2000s? How did the game industry survive a pre-monetisation system before now? It can be done. Its just big publishers are afraid of investing in a project that could fail. Its called the game of capitalism, lads. You want to take risks in the hope of big pay-outs? Fine, but don't pass the bill down to the customers when a project fails. You took the risk, you reap the reward or take the hit. Can't have it both ways.

How would Overwatch players feel if Blizzard admitted they have made enough money right now to support the game for ten years, but they can't remove lootboxes because the money is helping to offset the costs of Destiny and Destiny 2? In truth, that is probably a more accurate reason for lootboxes in games like Overwatch than 'needing the financial support', particularly when you see Acti-Blizz coming in with four billion net from micro-transactions...

gizmo

Falthyron wrote: »

Make good cosmetic content people are willing to pay for? Its simple market mechanics. If people want it, they will pay for it. Nobody wants a lottery system and nobody wants shít cosmetic content. In fact, if they sold cosmetic content directly to the customer it would do their metrics the world of good, enabling them to be more on-point when it comes to the type of cosmetics people enjoy. I'm sure many people play Overwatch characters with any old skin they got in a box, but it doesn't mean its the skin they actually want.

Bingo. It'd be interesting to see how the community would react to that too, particularly how much they'd be willing to spend per item and how that compares to how they feel about loot box pricing.

For instance, $1.99 may sound like a lot for a skin, but a good deal of folk seem to have no problem paying that for just two loot boxes which more than likely won't even result in you getting the thing you want.

Falthyron wrote: »

As for the need for a game to support itself? What happened in the early 2000s? How did the game industry survive a pre-monetisation system before now? It can be done. Its just big publishers are afraid of investing in a project that could fail. Its called the game of capitalism, lads. You want to take risks in the hope of big pay-outs? Fine, but don't pass the bill down to the customers when a project fails. You took the risk, you reap the reward or take the hit. Can't have it both ways.

In the early 2000s outside of MMOs it would have been practically unheard of for a studio not to move onto their next project for nearly two years while they continued to support their existing one with additional free content so it wouldn't have been an issue really.

Falthyron wrote: »

How would Overwatch players feel if Blizzard admitted they have made enough money right now to support the game for ten years, but they can't remove lootboxes because the money is helping to offset the costs of Destiny and Destiny 2? In truth, that is probably a more accurate reason for lootboxes in games like Overwatch than 'needing the financial support', particularly when you see Acti-Blizz coming in with four billion net from micro-transactions...

As above, specifically for the Overwatch team, it justifies continued arses on seats.