Nice Micro-transaction Article

It depends on the microtransaction for me.

-I've got no problem with Path of Exile's microtransactions as they don't affect gameplay whatsoever.

-I've got some slight problems with Team Fortress microtransactions as, while the game is playable without them, you're missing out on a lot of the game if you don't sink money into it.

-Pay to win is fricking stupid, any game where the microtransactions sink to that is automatically shite.

I like Cliffy B and he makes some good points but this...

quote:

---

Adjusted for inflation, your average video game is actually cheaper than it ever has been.

---

Bothers me. Gaming is still the highest priced form of entertainment out there.

I know AAA titles spend more on production than they ever have, as more and more of them have become movies more than game these days, but isn't the cost of development outside of that production cost actually cheaper these days due to technology, a bigger pool of talented game devs, and mainstreamed studio managment?

Gaming is like any other business and it's adapt to the market or die. If the video game industry pisses people off too much with DLC then the consumer will push back and they will be fighting not to drown like the recodring industry is these days.

I for one don't have a problem with DLC that isn't pay to win or doesn't affect the outcome and enjoyment of the main game I pay the $60 for.

people wouldnt bitch about EA if they didnt release broken games and expect you to buy a DLC or expansion just to make it playable.

Hello Sims 3, SimCity, et al.

quote:

---

people wouldnt bitch about EA if they didnt release broken games and destroy beloved franchises like Mass Effect

---

FIFY

quote:

---

h the monthly bash EA thread. The gangs all here!

---

Maybe next month EA will quit being the worst video game publisher in history.

Man I hate that EA!

quote:

---

Maybe next month EA will quit being the worst video game publisher in history

---

go look at my pics in the 3rd page of the simcity thread. EA doesnt have to worry about being challenged for the most hated spot anytime soon.

quote:

---

I agree with most of it.

---

I agree with the two major points:

1. Video Games are a Business and they need to make money
2. Vote with your dollars

But the article makes some giant, and often bad, assumptions.

quote:

---

To produce a high quality game it takes tens of millions of dollars, and when you add in marketing that can get up to 100+ million. In the AAA console market you need to spend a ton of cash on television ads alone, never mind other marketing stunts, launch events, swag, and the hip marketing agency that costs a boatload in your attempts to “go viral” with something. Not only is the market more crowded than ever but your average consumer has many more entertainment options than ever before in the history of humanity.

---

Problem #1 - The assumption is the bloated cost has to stay the same. Rather than look to reduce cost, they are looking to increase profit scalability.

The PROBLEM with that is it is a direct line to Designing Games to take advantage of microtransactions. That is different from microtransactions as just another part of the game. That's really the issue at stake. As soon as developers start designing games to take advantage of such a model, we'll be thrown into some major issues as gamers.

(And with this coming out, it's interesting that Nintendo HAS looked to find ways to reduce the cost of production).

quote:

---

Another factor to consider is the fact that many game development studios are in places like the San Francisco bay area, where the cost of living is extraordinarily high. (Even Seattle is pretty pricey these days.) Those talented artists, programmers, designers, and producers that spent their time building the game you love? They need to eat and feed their families. (Something that the hipster/boomerang kid generation seems to forget all too often.)

---

Again, so rather than look at different development hubs, they HAVE to stay in California, that's just a terrible argument.

quote:

---

I’m going to come right out and say it. I’m tired of EA being seen as “the bad guy.” I think it’s bullshite that EA has the “scumbag EA” memes on Reddit and that Good Guy Valve can Do No Wrong. Don’t get me wrong – I’m a huge fan of Gabe and co. and most everything they do. (Remember, I bought that custom portal turret that took over the internet a while back and I have friends over there.) However, it blows my mind that somehow gamers don’t seem to get that Valve is a business, just like any other, and when Valve charges $100 for an engagement ring in Team Fortress 2 it’s somehow “cool” yet when EA wants to sell something similar it’s seen as “evil.” Yes, guys, I hate to break it to you, as awesome as Valve is they’re also a company that seeks to make as much money as possible. They’re just way better at their image control.

---

Problem #3 - It has nothing to do with image control and everything to do with perceived intents by the customers.

So customers have seen:

1. Valve start from a very small company and grow through cultivating their own niche audience.
2. Create a system that was originally laughed at and slowly build it into a juggernaut.
3. Craft unique and wonderful games. Taking chances on all of them, and finding new ways to make revenue through new platforms. Valve can sell a million copies of a 5 year old game like no one else (Actively lowering the cost/value of fun)

On the other hand, we've seen:

1. EA grow exponentially spreading its arms and influence over vast parts of the market
2. Cater, for good reason, to the middle of the road expectations
3. Make games for a general audience
4. Engage in Anti-consumer activities (Madden)

While every business is geared to make money, Valve's way has been to CREATE markets of new revenue, while EA's was always to TAKE OVER markets. It's a different approach.

That's nothing against EA, but that automatically makes it an untrustworthy relationship to the consumer.

I love plenty of EA games, but I have little confidence in their ability to think outside of the box (where's my Mirror's Edge sequel?) even if they see some success. I also expect them to cater much more to the general audience,

the problem with a general audience is that....

People will pay for advantages. And that is a very real danger with EA engaging in microtransactions.

I think their major franchises are safe, but as you get down the list, there is going to be the lure of greater profits by selling advantages, and that's problematic.

quote:

---

“Free to play” aka “Free to spend 4 grand on it” is here to stay, like it or not. Everyone gets a Smurfberry! Every single developer out there is trying to solve the mystery of this new model. Every console game MUST have a steady stream of DLC because, otherwise, guess what? It becomes traded in, or it’s just rented. In the console space you need to do anything to make sure that that disc stays in the tray. I used to be offended by Gamestop’s business practices but let’s be honest… they’re the next Tower Records or Sam Goody. It’s only a matter of time.

---

Problem #4 -

Game developers have obviously already started making games beyond the $60 level of profit margins. How come every other industry can handle a used market, but games can't? What makes them so different?

Games should be made made with the accepted consumer level of spending in mind, and they aren't. That is a huge problem.

quote:

---

Saying a game has micro-transactions is a giant generalization, really, it is an open ended comment. What can you buy? Can you buy a cosmetic hat? Or can I spend a buck to go to the top of the leaderboard? Can I buy a bigger gun? What about gambling? (It’s like saying a game is open world; that could mean GTA, Assassin’s Creed, or heck, even Borderlands.) Which one do you actually mean? Do Zynga’s practices often feel sleazy? Sure. Don’t like it? Don’t play it. Don’t like pay to win? You have the freedom to opt out and not even touch the product.

---

This is true and consumers will determine the direction the industry goes in.

I'm on the fence about the future and the level of innovation occurring now.

quote:

---

No one seemed too upset at Blizzard when you could buy a pet in World of Warcraft – a game that you had to buy that was charging a monthly fee. (How dare console games have steady cycles of buyable DLC!) When I was a child and the Ultimate Nintendo Fanboy I spent every time I earned from my paper route on anything Nintendo. Nintendo Cereal. Action figures. Posters. Nintendo Power. Why? Because I loved what Nintendo meant to me and I wanted them to keep bringing me more of this magic.

---

Because People are fanatic about Blizzard. And people are fanatic about Nintendo. EA doesn't share that kind of fanbase. If they want one, they have to cultivate and target that fanbase. They don't. (they are more property oriented than BRAND oriented, and that is by marketing and design).

That's their choice, but they are great at what they do. Reap what you sow.

quote:

---

I’ve been transparent with most folks I’ve worked with in my career as to why I got into this business. First, to make amazing products – because I love the medium more than any. Second, to be visible. I enjoy the notoriety that I’ve managed to stir up. If you don’t like the games, or the sales techniques, don’t spend your money on them. You vote with your dollars.

---

And that's exactly why people play games, because they love them. When the game industry is facing a very big change, you can't be upset with people having issues.

And yes, they'll vote with their wallets, but that might destroy the game industry as we know it.

quote:

---

Stupid point by them. Nothing like Steam was out. Origin came into a market that was already established. If they really wanted to compete they needed to not suck at their launch, and they still suck. They're competing with a product how it is now, not how it was when it launched years ago.

---

Except you pay between $7-$10 dollars to see a movie. If you want the $20 figure then you'd have to include any snacking I do while playing the game and other similar asinine costs like how much my power bill goes up for the hours spent gaming.

And you pay the same amount for one of those 100+ hour multiplayer games that you do for a single-player game you're going to play through once and then let collect dust. Your figures are misleading, the only question is if that's intentionally so.