Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[UKGamer]

the biggest issue is ultimately (as Jim says...) games publishers are not happy with "some" money and profit they want "ALL" the money and all the profit.

But that's business I suppose. My biggest miss is mid-tier games that we had an abundance of in the PS2 era - made sure that games remained varied - which is sadly just not the case today and indie games really don't fill that gap either.... (Jim actually did a vid on this too)

[Cassius_Smoke]

The latest tomb Raider is costing £100 mil to make, which suggests that square expect to see that money and more back in sales. It also suggests that the previous one made that kind of money back or investers wouldn't have bankrolled it. And, if this is the case, this is an example of a game making large amounts of cash, that isn't packed to the rafters with microtransactions.

[Digfox]

The figures are doubly absent; firstly because we don't get this kind of info in a public forum, but secondly, because what info we have is usually inferred from shareholder disclosures, and not itemised per-game.

A large part of the problem is that people point to GTAV and say "videogames are making money hand over fist" but that's like pointing to the Marvel movies and saying "the entire movie industry is making tons of money". The big tentpole titles suggest that revenue is fine for that top-end, but it doesn't necessarily carry through for all games. Also, the revenue models for console AAA titles and mobile titles are so different that they're as different an industry as movies in cinemas and movies on DVD; ostensibly a similar product but structured in a totally different way.

My use of GTA V was simply to demonstrate how little info is given with and not as an example of average game's financial performance. Insert virtually any game from the large western publishers; The Division, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Destiny 2 etc. The point is still valid.

Ignoring Family Fry slightly silly first point, I believe we can make an assumption that the driver for MTX, Lootboxes, Cosmetic Microtransactions, Pre-Order Bonuses, multi-tiered pricing, is not primarily being driven by this fallacy of rising costs, but by something far simpler; greed.

Of course this is generalisation that doesn't take into account how smaller developers or publishers, or the differences in platforms, and nuances or complexities that could make this discussion far longer. However the original post never made that distinction either.

[Neon Ignition]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/analyst-loot-boxes-exist-due-to-idiocy/

Pachter says Lootboxes exist... because players are stupid

[Family Fry]

I’ve always believed one of the biggest influence on lootboxes booming was because of YouTubers, especially FIFA ultimate team reaction videos, they were basically saying come watch me open these boxes and see how exciting it is without ever mentioning the cost involved.
I’ve seen many a parent in GAME buy ultimate team credit, they are effectively allowing their children to grow up gambling, something needs to be done about it.

Videos like this, standing at 2.9 million views.

Come watch me open £140’s worth of Overwatch loot boxes. You’ll notice it doesn’t mention cost anywhere and he even says at the start of the video, keep watching to see how you can win $200 battlenet credit. Just subscribe and comment to be in with a chance of winning, then you can gamble like I do.

[Asura]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/analyst-...due-to-idiocy/

Pachter says Lootboxes exist... because players are stupid

Ugh,

Asked about the biggest disruption coming in the next few years he says it’s going to be the lack of need of consoles as home devices, TVs, etc. become powerful enough that the addressable market for games expands exponentially: “I’d say it’s probably five to seven years of migration, but the game market becomes anybody with a PC or a laptop playing on their television like it’s a console with a controller. That just removes the console purchase as a barrier to entry. You want to be selling software into that.”

Oh change the record, Pachter. I've been reading articles about your predictions and you've been saying this for 15~ years. It hasn't happened yet.

I can buy a microwave which is also an oven, but everyone knows a proper oven is better.
I can buy a washer-drier if I'm pushed for space, but separate units are far superior.
I can buy a town-and-trail bike if I want a multi-purpose bicycle, but I can't take it for serious mountain biking and it won't be as fast as a city bike.

And I can play videogames on my phone, PC, smart TV or anywhere else - but they won't be as good as on a device explicitly built for that purpose.

More people are certainly going to play games on a wider number of devices, but the two will never be co-equal. They're different addressable markets which exist for different reasons.

That being said, to a degree, Pachter does have a point about lootboxes. I think he's being harsh saying "people are stupid" but there is a grain of truth to his words; lootboxes exist because people buy them. If people didn't, they wouldn't exist/they'd cease to exist. I don't, and probably most people here don't, but a huge number of people do - hence the success of Ultimate Team.

[Digfox]

And I can play videogames on my phone, PC, smart TV or anywhere else - but they won't be as good as on a device explicitly built for that purpose.

..no they will be better on a PC!

In all seriousness the full interview on Venturebeat is worth a read. He talks a lot of sense, and I think he has a point on set-top boxes. With stuff like Fortnite and PUBG the experience on mobile or PC is largely the same (and potentially better).

Re: the 'stupid' comment on Lootboxes, it's hard to disagree with him. I think publishers are manipulating their customers, but then arguably so do most large businesses when it comes to selling any product. And he obviously completely avoids the wider point of whether there is a need for consumers to be protected. Which is probably to be expected.

Another interesting read published over the last day or two at Ars Technica - Game companies need to cut the crap—loot boxes are obviously gambling (via ResetEra).

[Asura]

And now Square-Enix have said that they won't be continuing their "Go" series of games, because premium games on mobile aren't viable anymore:

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-06-01-square-enix-montreal-abandons-go-games-will-continue-work-on-mobile

... and Square overall have really tried to release premium games on mobile, much more than I think any of the other big publishers. They only recently released a port of Valkyrie Profile, for instance. If they say they're not viable, I believe them, because they can present their receipts.

Fact is, on mobile at least,Square sank a lot into trying to make premium games, but they just didn't take off. No-one wants them. Meanwhile everyone complains about freemium games yet they pay for them.

I had honestly hoped that both sectors could stay viable, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. It's depressing.

[MartyG]

Square Enix's premium mobile game Hitman Sniper surpassed 10 million lifetime players earlier this year - that sounds more like another of Squenix's "not meeting expectations" nonsense than lack of viability.

I'd think 10 million x $5 more than covers the cost of creating that game (although it's discounted to 79p currently). It just isn't all the money.

[Asura]

Square Enix's premium mobile game Hitman Sniper surpassed 10 million lifetime players earlier this year - that sounds more like another of Squenix's "not meeting expectations" nonsense than lack of viability.

That game is supported by heavy use of microtransactions though. It's just a freemium game with an initial price.

When I say "premium", I mean a game with an initial price (maybe with a demo) for which that price covers essentially the whole game. Maybe a few expansions or large chunks of DLC.

[MartyG]

Some of SquareEnix's games aren't massively suitable for the mobile format - those JRPGs don't lend themselves well to throwaway casual short commute plays of the mobile audience. I'm quite sure the right premium game is viable and we know historically how easily SquareEnix gets disappointed with sales.

On a completely different thread, a researcher has now spent 3800 Euros on FIFA Ultimate Team packs in an effort to work out the odds: https://www.reddit.com/r/FIFA/commen...ct_3800_later/ - let's just say the house always wins.

[wakka]

3800 euros later, he still didn't have that great of a team according to the people knowledgeable about the game in the comments. Not a single 'Icon' card, presumably the best cards.

It would seem rational that if you spend over three grand, you would get a mega team. But it seems the game has been structured so that anyone who does spend that much has an incentive to keep spending.

What a way to spend your time and money.

[MartyG]

And those that spend do so every year - EA reset the FUT with each release if I'm not mistaken.

It's little wonder EA is so desperate to cling on to this golden goose.

[fishbowlhead]

People are insane to spend money like that on nothing, nothing!

Why even bother making games when you can get £1000 out of someone for some random cards you can get an algorithm to splurge out for you.

[QualityChimp]

On a completely different thread, a researcher has now spent 3800 Euros on FIFA Ultimate Team packs in an effort to work out the odds: https://www.reddit.com/r/FIFA/commen...ct_3800_later/ - let's just say the house always wins.

"Hello I'd like to apply for a grant to buy thousands of pounds worth of FIFA cards to do an in-depth analysis of the odds of return to player and the likeness to gambling."
"No problem!"

It reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon where they're in a meeting with the boss who is moaning about the speed of the internet and Wally offers to test the resilience of network by visiting the most bandwidth demanding, graphically intensive websites.
As they're walking out the meeting he says to Dilbert "I was that close to being paid to watch porn as a job."