Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[Asura]

That lootbox thing only affects titles where the boxes have tradeable contents, though - so if you can get a skin from the box that you could sell for real money. It's a step towards improvements to protect consumers, certainly, but it still maintains a particular distinction - it only affects stuff that has real-money application, and is "gambling" in the greater accepted sense.

[Digfox]

No, I don't think that's correct for this specific news story. It's the fact certain games have been determined to be a game of chance and therefore gambling under Belgium's laws. Overwatch in one of the games, for example. So either the Publishers will have to appeal, remove their products from sale or apply for gambling licenses (I doubt this would be considered for multiple reasons, or if it's even an option but who knows).

[Cassius_Smoke]

I think we will see the end of aggressive loot boxes. It's becoming toxic. Didn't EA say recently that the star wars debacle has them shaken and looking to avoid a repeat.

[Asura]

No, I don't think that's correct for this specific news story. It's the fact certain games have been determined to be a game of chance and therefore gambling under Belgium's laws. Overwatch in one of the games, for example. So either the Publishers will have to appeal, remove their products from sale or apply for gambling licenses (I doubt this would be considered for multiple reasons, or if it's even an option but who knows).

Ah, it appears I got mixed up between this and another story which was the day before, about the Netherlands, where their changes are limited to boxes with tradeable value.

That being said, the Belgian statement is interesting, as their definition is (probably intentionally) vague.

It's a positive move, though, regardless.

[Digfox]

At least it's much more decisive than the UK Gambling Commission: 'The line is crossed, the Gambling Commission says, when players have the ability to cash out. 'A key factor in deciding if that line has been crossed is whether in-game items acquired 'via a game of chance' can be considered money or money's worth,"...

It's not like you can cash out in PUBG, CS:GO or Rocket League etc...

Idiots.

[Dogg Thang]

Its a huge shame that this is even needed.

[MartyG]

The latest in scummy microtransaction BS, courtesy of Jim Sterling. Trigger warning: Contains naughty language words for the aurally sensensitive.

[fishbowlhead]

And he’s 100% factually correct on every point. Pah.

[wakka]

That's some scurrilous design right there. My colleague has two boys of 5 and 8, they were always bugging him to buy gems etc for mobile games. He doesn't game at all, but bought them each a 2DS with NSMB2 preloaded last Xmas on my advice.

They love it, they don't bug him as there's of course tons of content, and they were only £70 each new.

It warmed the cockles of my heart to know those 2 boys are finding out what real gaming is, not being bilked by this nonsense.

[fishbowlhead]

Can someone tweet this at JK Rowling? Would she even give a F?

[Cassius_Smoke]

https://screenrant.com/shadow-tomb-raider-cost-100-million/

This is an interesting article because it made me think.
Obviously this kind of spending is rare or it wouldn't be reported. So we can surmise that most games cost less than this.
Also, many Hollywood movies cost this much and more, yet ticket prices, although not cheap, ain't £40+. And looking at the end titles of movies, they involve alot of people who all need paying, much like videogame credits.

I'm not really sure what my point is...
Probably: why are we being charged so much for games?
And
Microtransactions can't be necessary to make a profit because movies do by charging far less.

If we compare the Tomb Raider Movie to the Tomb Raider game, both cost about $100 mil to make. Yet the Tomb Raider movie made $272 mil by charging movie ticket prices.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dcfilm0318.htm

[Family Fry]

Well let’s just say a ticket cost, as an example $10, cinema take 30%, so we will say $7 bucks goes to film company.
This means means 39 million people went and paid to watch tomb raider.

Maybe if potentially 38 million people bought video games, games would be cheaper.
Unfortunately gamers have become cheap ass mother****ers.

To answer your question we are in fact being charged too little for games in comparison to the cost of production, that’s not what you want to hear but it’s true.

[Asura]

The latest in scummy microtransaction BS, courtesy of Jim Sterling. Trigger warning: Contains naughty language words for the aurally sensensitive.

Making an ungodly amount of money though:

https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/26/harry-potter-hogwarts-mystery-tops-apple-app-store-charts-a-day-after-launch/

It's what people want, or at least, what they're willing to pay for.

[Digfox]

Maybe if potentially 38 million people bought video games, games would be cheaper.

Unfortunately gamers have become cheap ass mother****ers.

Unlikely. There are numerous examples of people spending large amounts on a videogame. Games can also sell to smaller audience than film and be hugely successful (i.e. COD each year won't sell 38m but is still generates billions in revenue.

To answer your question we are in fact being charged too little for games in comparison to the cost of production, that’s not what you want to hear but it’s true.

This is a point that if often repeating with little evidence to no evidence to back it up. Which I appreciate if very difficult to do when the industry is so secret on it's numbers (i.e. GTA V has sold X copies, but no amount given for the revenue streams or how much units sold for). In real terms it's debatable overall costs have gone up, particularly given large western AAA developers are releasing less games, albeit spending more on developers, marketing, finance etc. for each title. However a lot of games are easily generating revenue above their cost of production.

We also have an industry that is enjoying the lower costs or digital distribution (no existent of they own the network) and (like some other large organisations) use complex off-shore accounting to avoid tax liabilities. Also unlike the movies there aren't any royalties or excessive salaries for major stars. Usually far less is spent on advertising as well.

The videogame industry has found a very effective way of making money and that's why such record revenue and profits are being made.

[Asura]

This is a point that if often repeating with little evidence to no evidence to back it up. Which I appreciate if very difficult to do when the industry is so secret on it's numbers (i.e. GTA V has sold X copies, but no amount given for the revenue streams or how much units sold for).

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.