(most) Microtransactions are OK and people need to stop bitching about them

[HellHound]

it's like a free trial. the first 30 minutes are free but you have to pay to experience the rest. except it costs $60 just to try the game and every consecutive 30 minute block is another $60

[Ad Bot]

[Arekan]

Ah, yes, because these companies didn't make enough money off of their golden legendary deluxe season pass editions of the game. Individual DLC purchases, sometimes subscription services.  Oh, and the massive amounts of merchandise that gets sold across a stupid amount of things like shirts to logos on a coffee mug. What about the sponsorships and partnerships with food companies? Ah, those are just rookie numbers.

I hope you realize that, if microtransactions weren't pulling through metric stufftons of money, they wouldn't add them, and they wouldn't try shoving it in your face as much as they could. There's a reason that developers add special editions of games, and it's because there's a market of people who have money and don't give two stuffs. They spend the money even if it's not worth it. Microtransactions are the same concept.

Also, no. Developers are paid the exact same amount if the game suddenly blows up or if the game doesn't do hot, give or take just a tiny bit of leeway there. The ones profiting off of a boost in sales are the higher ups.

I'm open for McJob to come by and refute everything I've said though. I'm only basing it off of speculation and personal experience.

[otto-san]

people are obviously paid their salaries as they work on the game, but the profits they make off of a title determine how well the studio is able to develop new titles or continuously develop the title they just put out, and by extension, it determines the security of the jobs of the people who just finished working on the game

[Arekan]

people are obviously paid their salaries as they work on the game, but the profits they make off of a title determine how well the studio is able to develop new titles or continuously develop the title they just put out, and by extension, it determines the security of the jobs of the people who just finished working on the game

I would agree with job security flucatuating depending on how well a game sells, but I don't believe their pay is effected, so I don't like it when that is what is used as the face argument. Instead of "is it so bad that developers make more money?? :((" (which is false) they should just say, "The sales change the job security of the employees."

[Shift Kitty]

you know a good way of making non-cosmetic microtransactions are XP/Currency Boost, you dont directly gain more of the dosh or XP, but you can pay to get a 50 or something percent boost for a certain amount of time

To be very, very honest. I hate boosters. And in certain kinds of games, they can be very bad. Could you imagine if they included one for Path of Exile?

[Conan]

I'm open for McJob to come by and refute everything I've said though. I'm only basing it off of speculation and personal experience.

while you wait for mcjob maybe consider consulting this blog specifically about game development + game development business run by a game developer. his (or her?) faq links a bunch of pages about game development, the numbers, and why you should trust this blogger despite not naming him/herself (mostly due to NDA/possible harassment reasons)

christ i hate it when people pull this argument that devs just took stuff out the base game and made it dlc

cause thats literally never the case. microtransactions maybe but not dlc.
http://askagamedev.tumblr.com goes into this misconception in depth
edit: specifically this post and the subsequent ones: http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/72269327402/game-developer-myths-the-complete-game

the page i linked was specifically about DLC, but (s)he has gone into microtransactions before, and even specifically about Shadow of War, just scroll down from the main page (since its relatively recent game news and the post was made not too long ago)

[AutoBahn]

bumping this thread because I'm curious how/if people's thoughts have changed since the release and controversy around EA's Battlefront 2

[hillkill]

opinion still stands.

if video games did just fine for over 30+ years, what would be making them go down hard enough that they have to implement p2w/microtransactions? developers literally only care about money, but it's been easier to get greedy nowadays. they don't see how people feel about being alienated with paid buffs, they see $$$.

[Vigil]

I don't think people realize that DLC and MTX keep developers in their loving jobs after a games release. Also did you know that games haven't changed price in a couple decades? I bet your ass if the price changed with inflation, we'd be paying $80-90 for a title rather than $60. Games take millions of loving dollars to produce. People need to get paid their salaries. Is there some mismanagement with where that money goes? Sometimes, yes. But the issue isnt MTX or DLC itself, its how its implemented. You can find swathes of poor and great uses of MTX and DLC.

[hillkill]

I don't think people realize that DLC and MTX keep developers in their loving jobs after a games release. Also did you know that games haven't changed price in a couple decades? I bet your ass if the price changed with inflation, we'd be paying $80-90 for a title rather than $60. Games take millions of loving dollars to produce. People need to get paid their salaries. Is there some mismanagement with where that money goes? Sometimes, yes. But the issue isnt MTX or DLC itself, its how its implemented. You can find swathes of poor and great uses of MTX and DLC.

royalties aren't paid to developers from MTX/DLC btw, it's a one time deal most of the time. $60 for a full game is way more than plenty; within the 3 days of its release, cod:ww2 sold over $500 million copies. most AAA games sell well over the budget. the developer's salaries are pre-determined by a contract too.

i like DLC, but i don't like microtransactions. i haven't found a game yet that uses it "correctly"

[otto-san]

royalties aren't paid to developers from MTX/DLC btw, it's a one time deal most of the time. $60 for a full game is way more than plenty; within the 3 days of its release, cod:ww2 sold over $500 million copies. most AAA games sell well over the budget. the developer's salaries are pre-determined by a contract too.

i like DLC, but i don't like microtransactions. i haven't found a game yet that uses it "correctly"

what's your standard for proper use? games like maplestory have had microtransactions for ages far before it was ever controversial. lots of MMOs have similar monetization schemes where players can pay for cosmetics or special pets/mounts and the sort. i guess it's also worth asking what your standard for improper use is if that's easier to answer; certain implementations of microtransactions in mobile markets especially can tend to be exploitative, for instance, and that'd be understandable

[hillkill]

what's your standard for proper use? games like maplestory have had microtransactions for ages far before it was ever controversial. lots of MMOs have similar monetization schemes where players can pay for cosmetics or special pets/mounts and the sort. i guess it's also worth asking what your standard for improper use is if that's easier to answer; certain implementations of microtransactions in mobile markets especially can tend to be exploitative, for instance, and that'd be understandable

i guess i sort of grouped the "bad" and "good MTX together. generally, "good" MTX to me are simple cosmetics that add no value to the game (cs:go is not a good example though since these skins have monetary value).

bad MTX are buffs and items that you could get in the game but takes ridiculous amounts of griding-- this is what stuffty people do. why wait another day for another life in candy crush while a simple click of a button will get you more? it's proven that money means less when you buy it with a card rather than cash. it's exploiting human psyche imo.

[Vigil]

royalties aren't paid to developers from MTX/DLC btw, it's a one time deal most of the time. $60 for a full game is way more than plenty; within the 3 days of its release, cod:ww2 sold over $500 million copies. most AAA games sell well over the budget. the developer's salaries are pre-determined by a contract too.

i like DLC, but i don't like microtransactions. i haven't found a game yet that uses it "correctly"

Break down that 500 mil to all the wages paid out to every staff member and how long will that last a company? An employee may be under a contract, but with how volatile positions can be, it doesn't guarantee them anything.



This is just a superficial average. Companies can have hundred of employees working in a dev team. That doesn't even cover other teams that deal with the game, like publishers. A global director in publishing can be making close to $200k/y, not including any bonuses.

The additional revenue past the initial launch can keep companies stable and allow the continuing development of other content.

As much as it sucks to hear though, business means you need to turn a profit. You can't just break even. When companies fail to profit, they close and then you're forgeted out of games.

[otto-san]

bad MTX are buffs and items that you could get in the game but takes ridiculous amounts of griding-- this is what stuffty people do. why wait another day for another life in candy crush while a simple click of a button will get you more? it's proven that money means less when you buy it with a card rather than cash. it's exploiting human psyche imo.

i'm with you on this; there are definitely schemes like this that are exploitative and in those cases the microtransactions specifically are the issue

though with other things, i think it's highly context-specific. if a dev implements microtransactions that can somehow give you a gameplay advantage, then i'd consider that a design oversight or flaw rather than it necessarily being an unethical business practice. if a dev fails to appropriately accommodate for their monetization schemes, then that's a larger issue than just the scheme itself. for instance, if dark souls let people with DLC invade people without the same content, that would cause a major balance issue, but the problem wouldn't be the introduction of DLC, it would be a failure of the designers to appropriately accommodate for it. i think it's totally possible to implement non-trivial microtransaction content (like mounts/pets in MMOs) and still have it be acceptable, it's just dependent on how clever the devs are at making sure it doesn't end up breaking the game's design in unexpected places

[hillkill]

The additional revenue past the initial launch can keep companies stable and allow the continuing development of other content.

As much as it sucks to hear though, business means you need to turn a profit. You can't just break even. When companies fail to profit, they close and then you're forgeted out of games.

so why did games do just fine with a $60 price tag and no DLC?