Why microtransactions, IAPs and LootBoxes are here to stay thread

[Digfox]

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).

Your maths aern't off. The rumours/estimates are Epic are making $300-500m+ a month (which will obviously mostly be from Fortnite BR mtx given their catalog). So this would put Epic on track to be doing $3.6bn-$6bn in a year. So whilst this is just one survey, and open to bias and all the other issues with sample groups. It is possible or likely that Epic are breaking records with engagement and spend amongst it's playerbase.

It's also a relatively young game, which could have years of life yet and is only continuing to grow atm. One telling statistic that does suggest they are ripping up the rulebook is: 'Furthermore, more than a third (36.78 per cent) of these players revealed that Fortnite is the first video game they've spent money on.'. Of course this might also indicate a lower demographic is being drawn into their game - which again we suspect.

[MENTION=3144]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.

Yes. It says that in the article

Across that 68.8 per cent of spending players, the average amount of money invested in Fortnite over the past year was $84.67.

* completely get your point. Of course ARPU is a rarer figure and more difficult to guess at.

You have to assume that of 125m users at least 60% are dormant accounts...

No, they are just the abandoned Epic accounts with PSN linked

[Neon Ignition]

I guess the biggest indicator we have of its active playerbase is the concurrent player record they recently set for themselves which puts it in Call of Duty levels of popularity. Black Ops was said to have the same peak and that game sold 25m, though CoD had the benefit as well of not being F2P so there's an element of Fortnite having deduct money from its microtransaction sales to cover the costs the money from initial game purchasing would normally cover.

Fortnite is probably the best positioned due to this though in the long term. Now every new release is including Battle Royale modes there's going to be very little reason for players to stick with Fortnite and Battlegrounds on paper, the F2P nature of Fortnite will probably be its greatest lifeline

[Asura]

Fortnite is probably the best positioned due to this though in the long term. Now every new release is including Battle Royale modes there's going to be very little reason for players to stick with Fortnite and Battlegrounds on paper, the F2P nature of Fortnite will probably be its greatest lifeline

Not sure I agree with that. I think Fortnite's success will continue due to momentum, not specifically anything to do with the game itself. It's the same reason Minecraft and World of Warcraft persist; people love the games, but it's because they've become a shared social activity.

[Digfox]

Yea, I kinda think Fortnite 'is' the storm (to quote Brady). In other words it is the World of Warcraft of BR games. I think everyone else is playing catch-up to be the 'WoW killer' but we will see a lot of failures (look at all the clones on Steam already). Epic are a technical powerhouse and as a result of a perfect storm put together something special. I do think Fortnite is the best of the BR games. Of course there has and will be other BR successes.

[Cassius_Smoke]

With these kind of figures being thrown around, you have to wonder how EA are going to fill that gap if they really have ditched Lootboxes. How will they make the shareholders happy?

[Family Fry]

With these kind of figures being thrown around, you have to wonder how EA are going to fill that gap if they really have ditched Lootboxes. How will they make the shareholders happy?

They are just going to go the Fortnite route.
No lootboxes doesn’t mean no cosmetics.

We are going to have some cosmetics and vanity items that you’ll be able to purchase, but you’re always going to know what you’re going to buy before you spend any money on it. No loot boxes, no ability to pay for power. That means no ability to spend money on gameplay advantage at all within Anthem.

So you’ll still be able to buy an orange and yellow power suit for £5 and EA will be more than happy to take that money.

[Digfox]

With these kind of figures being thrown around, you have to wonder how EA are going to fill that gap if they really have ditched Lootboxes. How will they make the shareholders happy?

EA haven't ditched Lootboxes. UT modes on their sports titles are going nowhere. The 'no lootboxes' in Battlefield 5 and Anthem spiel at E3 is just PR smoke. What they really mean is they haven't found as successful way to implement lootboxes which make them as much money outside their sports titles.

Expensive, timed cosmetics, maybe with a battlepass like system are probably what they will do instead. Indeed in Fortnite you arguably see the price of no lootboxes which are £20 skins and quartely battlepasses.

So you’ll still be able to buy an orange and yellow power suit for £5 and EA will be more than happy to take that money.

The cosmetic item won't be £5. Lots of items and probably more expensive for the nicer looking ones.

[Asura]

They are just going to go the Fortnite route.

That'll bankrupt them. Fortnite only works because an absolutely enormous number of people are playing the game, and it only exists because Epic adapted a failing game into this one, so as a hit-and-hope project it was low-cost. EA can't plan for Anthem to do those numbers.

In freemium gaming there's a maxim along the lines of "don't follow League of Legends", because there's a tendency for people to say "but League does this, League is really fair, League's monetisation isn't a ripoff..." but the freemium landscape is littered with games like Tribes Ascend, which were fantastic, cheap, fair to their playerbase and ultimately didn't make enough money to survive.

I can guarantee you that there are people over at EA who are bricking themselves; people who, if the Battlefront 2 fiasco had happened 6 months earlier, would never have let Anthem get off the ground, but now enough has been made that they have to see it through.

I'm not sure how they're going to monetise it, but I'm concerned it's going to be ill-advised and will really wreck it.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep. The Fortnite route is working for Fortnite (right now) and it doesn't mean it all works for everyone. It's like when all mobile developers quoted Angry Birds figures and none of them came close to matching them, including later Rovio themselves.

[Digfox]

That'll bankrupt them. Fortnite only works because an absolutely enormous number of people are playing the game, and it only exists because Epic adapted a failing game into this one, so as a hit-and-hope project it was low-cost. EA can't plan for Anthem to do those numbers.

In freemium gaming there's a maxim along the lines of "don't follow League of Legends", because there's a tendency for people to say "but League does this, League is really fair, League's monetisation isn't a ripoff..." but the freemium landscape is littered with games like Tribes Ascend, which were fantastic, cheap, fair to their playerbase and ultimately didn't make enough money to survive.

I can guarantee you that there are people over at EA who are bricking themselves; people who, if the Battlefront 2 fiasco had happened 6 months earlier, would never have let Anthem get off the ground, but now enough has been made that they have to see it through.

I'm not sure how they're going to monetise it, but I'm concerned it's going to be ill-advised and will really wreck it.

Yep, agree with some points, but wouldn't agree with the it'll 'bankrupt them' statement. They are making record revenues so a game underperforming, isn't going to bring EA down.

That said Fornite as a f2p game isn't the best comparison given their different models. Perhaps better comparisons are with games such as Destiny 2. EA are trying to find more profitable ways to monetize it's games. Will be interesting to see how Anthem attempts it. Or indeed what even Anthem is.

[Asura]

Yep, agree with some points, but wouldn't agree with the it'll 'bankrupt them' statement. They are making record revenues so a game underperforming, isn't going to bring EA down.

I guess I meant Bioware, rather than EA as a whole.

[Digfox]

EA says FIFA 19 will disclose Ultimate Team pack odds

"We give you a FIFA game that is very much a fully deep, fully rich experience. FIFA Ultimate Team is a separate mode you engage with, and you can choose or not choose to play, or you can choose or not choose to purchase. And, to a certain extent, your skills are equally or more so important. You may have a higher-rated team than me in FIFA Ultimate Team and I can still beat you.

"Choice is key. We want to make sure people can choose how they want to engage with the game, what they want to pay and spend on, and that fairness is wrapped around that choice such that there's not a detriment to that choice.

"When you're talking about Ultimate Team, there is a definite amount of choice involved we want people to feel good about, and then get the value they feel out of the time and money they're spending with it, and we think that works differently to the loot box controversies that were surrounding Battlefront."

Barf...

Loot boxes have also drawn the inquisitive gaze of government. While the UK does not consider loot boxes to be gambling, Belgium and The Netherlands do.

Holt, echoing a statement previously issued by EA on the subject, insisted FUT packs are not gambling because you can't cash out your virtual items (you can).

FIFA 2019 'might' be declaring odds for UT packs but the interview includes the usual turgid and insipid corporate BS. Nothing we haven't read or heard a million times before.

Really is a f2p, freemium mobile game at this point, but without any of the benefits.

[Family Fry]

Because a single person can spend $10k over two years on a single game?

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-07-23-fifa-player-uses-gdpr-to-find-out-everything-ea-has-on-him-realises-hes-spent-over-usd10-000-in-two-years-on-ultimate-team

[Digfox]

Good use of GDPR. EA have held back data such as the cards he received in pack openings etc. I'm not sure I believe their reasons of it being trade secrets or for anti cheat reasons.

[Mayhem]

Nah, course it isn't, it's to hide the fact that getting the ultra rare players is near impossible. Someone buying that many packs would give away too many statistics.