Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[QualityChimp]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/10/17447914/devolver-digital-e3-loot-box-coin-gag

Devolver Digital mocks loot boxes and cryptocurrencies with its latest E3 stunt


Devolver Digital returned again this year for a surreal spoof on E3 press conferences, and it came bearing bizarre gifts. Among its many strange announcements: Lootbox Coin, a 2.5-inch, banana yellow coin that “has no actual value and by no means is to be considered cryptocurrency or a currency of any kind.”


Its price changes sporadically and without warning — currently, it’s selling for $125, but god knows where it’ll be in an hour. You can own this strange item yourself, but again, it has no value beyond a novelty gag. “You can’t buy anything with it,” the site says. “In fact, it’s insane for you to really buy it unless you want to prove your loyalty to Fork Parker, Nina Struthers, and the Devolver Digital executive board.”

I have no idea how long this thing will be on sale. It has also changed in price as I wrote this sentence ($113), because like life itself, it is wildly unpredictable and ultimately pointless.

[Neon Ignition]

I hope, I really hope that when it stops selling they drop the price to $0.01 as a burn

[Digfox]

Eurogamer article about EA Lootboxes: As EA backtracks on loot boxes and pay-to-win, I'm left wondering: what about FIFA?

For me the article makes some glaring omissions, i.e. that it isn't just FIFA but ALL EA sports titles including Madden - which in North America is the bigger title.

However in the comments is a comment that nails one of the major issues with these EA sports titles (and I've said before....many times) that FUT is usually the most exciting and developed mode.

I find myself having to invent these scenarios to freshen up the game as the basic career mode has barely changed in 6 years or more. I wish EA would revamp career or at least fix and refine what’s already there.

Nothing new but thought worth a post.

[Asura]

I find myself having to invent these scenarios to freshen up the game as the basic career mode has barely changed in 6 years or more. I wish EA would revamp career or at least fix and refine what’s already there.

EA is obviously making consistent money on Ultimate Team, month-on-month, so it's going to see the most development. This is no different to Marvel focusing on their most marketable characters, or Netflix commissioning new series of their most-watched shows.

This is actually a wider problem with data analysts (instead of creatives) being employed to focus their budget, and that affects a bunch of stuff in games. It's a pain sometimes.

[Digfox]

EA is obviously making consistent money on Ultimate Team, month-on-month, so it's going to see the most development. This is no different to Marvel focusing on their most marketable characters, or Netflix commissioning new series of their most-watched shows.

Of course, but even so lots of people still continue to miss this simple point. Even in the comments you can see people say 'you can ignore it' and play the career or other modes. The point being you really can't ignore this stuff.

[Neon Ignition]

FIFA's always been a bit of a unique case though I guess, I mean, the entire game is effectively a paid piece of DLC given how unnecessary its annual releases are.

[Digfox]

[MENTION=345]Superman Falls[/MENTION] - is it though?

It's not that different from a lot of the other western, big publisher releases where you have to stump up £80-100 for the full release every year and then rebuy all your micro-transactions. I mean you have a yearly COD, yearly Battlefield or Battlefront, yearly Destiny release, yearly Forza title, yearly Assassin's Creed and so on, and so on.

[Neon Ignition]

Id still say so as despite how much those other series throw out annual games, the levels, maps etc are broadly entirely new. The very nature of FIFA and the sport its based on means differences between entries are much more limited. If EA released one entry that was simply updated and added bits as season info changed there'd be no real difference.

It's true of all the main sports series though and I can see why they do it, tons of $$$ for minimal cost. CoD, BF etc no doubt wish they could get away with that extent of profiteering.

[Digfox]

Perhaps, but the business models are the same even if content isn't. Although I'd argues games like COD/Destiny and AC are largely reskins of existing games with minimal improvements each time.

The UT series has been very successful in monetising it's players and obviously behind why EA wanted their 'Wilson Lootboxes' in other games. But in the absence of statistics that doesn't mean some of these games haven't also been successful with their mtx systems.

[Digfox]

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-06-27-69-percent-of-fortnite-players-have-bought-in-game-purchases-average-spend-is-usd85

GI.biz: 69% of Fortnite players have bought in-game purchases, average spend is $85
But one in five spenders unaware that paying for items does not given them an advantage

Taken from 'Era, 1000 people surveyed.

[MartyG]

With an install base of 16 million players on PC alone, that's a lot of $$$ - this is why publishers love those microtransactions. A $1-2 here and there every week doesn't seem like much, but that soon adds up to $938,400,000.

Edit: Apparently that 16 million is well below the current player base, try 125 million: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tnite-players/

So, doing the maths again ...

125,000,000 * 69% = 86,250,000 spending players at $85 each average gives a grand total of ...

$7,331,250,000

Over $7 billion.

I'm struggling to believe that average spend is correct to be honest, (or I'm questioning my ability to do maths).

[Dogg Thang]

Well the article says they specifically went for people who play frequently, so they have deliberately sampled a group more into the game than probably most of the players which means you couldn’t apply it across the player base.

[Asura]

[MENTION=3144]Dogg Thang[/MENTION] [MENTION=2982]Mgear[/MENTION] [MENTION=42]MartyG[/MENTION] that 85$ figure is almost certainly "ARPPU", i.e. Average Revenue Per Paying User, as opposed to a true mean among all players.

That's an average that only includes any players who have ever paid anything, i.e. it shows how the game is perfoming among players who are willing to pay.

There's another figure, ARPU, which is more useful, that is the average per-user including everyone who hasn't spent money, but that's usually much lower. Bear in mind there are going to be Fortnite players who (1) spend nothing, (2) spend 6-20$ or so (to get the starter pack and maybe a season pass) and (3) spend an inordinate amount of money (basically who buy everything) - which makes a mean average bit of an odd figure.

[MartyG]

With a 125 million players, it still doesn't take much of a ARPU to make this massively profitable. It'd be interesting to know what that figure actually is.

[Neon Ignition]

You have to assume that of 125m users at least 60% are dormant accounts from people who tried it at some point but don't actively play the game. Then there'll be a vast number who have never paid a penny to it, then another significant number who have only ever paid £1-£20 on content.

But then I think if only 1% of the user count spent $100 to date on the game so far they'd still be looking at $125m earnt. Presumably it's a lot higher than that.