Microtransactions and DLC Have Tripled the Value of the Game Industry

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A study from monetization service company Digital River found that games as a service has tripled the industry's value: the report, Defend Your Kingdom: What Game Publishers Need to Know About Monetization & Fraud, noted that developers of all sizes are benefiting from the "steady stream of in-game content that both serves player expectations and increases their revenue per user." In 2016, a quarter of all digital revenue from PC games with an upfront cost came from additional content.

Consumers are expecting more for less from game developers, an issue which has also plagued indie game developers for some time. These shifting notions of value in the videogame world have irrevocably altered players' spending habits, the report found. "Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content," the report said. "Publishers seek to meet these expectations and have adopted a 'games as a service' model, releasing fewer titles over time while keeping players engaged longer with regular updates and add-ons."
 
hqdefault.jpg
 
This isn't any different than what mobile has been doing for years. Games like Paragon from Epic are free to play instead of costing 60$, and if you want some skins, you can buy chests to improve your experience (subjectively). People also love to support games that they play often, and streamers collect massive donation to spend in game live. While I don't agree with a lot of the DLC models, where you just don't get complete or finished games at full prices up front, I don't mind being able to add some flair to your game with some RNG to win it. However, paying to win should always be met with stiff opposition and confronted with mass boycott. Paragon issued Expensive packs for up to 100$ that allowed new players to get an unfair advantage and were immediately crushed by the community in mass. They made some BS statement saying it was an "accident" to Create the art, systems, and awards the way they did. Complete lies from the dev that created a pay 2 win scheme and then claimed they didn't when the entire community started leaving in mass.
 
Not to toot my own horn, but I'm too smart and have too much self-respect to let myself be manipulated in such a way. Back when I was playing World of Warcraft, I had a growing sense of how I was being manipulated by the game's mechanics—not in the interests of what is fun, but in the interests of keeping me reaching for my wallet.

I don't doubt these companies now employ psychologists who advise the developers on how best get players addicted and continue forking over cash by pressing the brain's reward buttons just so.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
I don't doubt these companies now employ psychologists who advise the developers on how best get players addicted and continue forking over cash by pressing the brain's reward buttons just so.
Click to expand...

I's time I blow your mind and introduce you to "The Century of the Self", a 2002 British television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis. It focuses on the work of psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud, and PR consultant Edward Bernays. It will change your perspective on every facet of what it means to be a consumer, and for that matter a human being. It also has the added side effect of giving you an existential crisis.

For me personally though, I can never look at commercials, ads, social media, or any marketing entity that attempts to convince me to buy things with money I don't have to please people I don't like, especially after watching this documentary. Results may vary of course, but you're in for a ride mi hermano because this is easily one of my top ten most influential docs I've ever watched and I highly encourage everyone here to watch this at least once.
 
Its going to cost me $100 to get the xcom2 expansion, and 3 ubber bosses...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski
like this
I think this only adds to why I won't bother with new games anymore.
Why buy new when I will get the DLCs all included? Loot crates lose much of its allure if there's not much bragging rights left to getting the 'loots'.
 
nickel and dime-ing has always been the backbone of good business.
 
I spent probably $40 on csgo skins. I didn't open cases but just bought what I wanted... so I supported it in a way. I am part of the problem.
 
My shtick is that if a game has an upfront cost, it shouldn't have additional transactions.

Back in the day, you had mission packs and expansions. Those were basically what modern developers call 'sequels'.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
...which means that there will never go away.

People keep complaining, but as long as they pay, they continue to incentivise this awful behavior.

The only way these things will stop is if everyone boycotts them.
Click to expand...
The problem is, nobody is willing to sacrifice anything to stop crap like this. The selfishness level these days is off the scale.
 
oldmanbal said:
This isn't any different than what mobile has been doing for years.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work on me, I haven't spent a penny on any DLC or microtransactions in a game.

Phone games are just time wasters. If a game gets to difficult to play without spending money, I just stop playing it and switch to a different game.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Not to toot my own horn, but I'm too smart and have too much self-respect to let myself be manipulated in such a way. Back when I was playing World of Warcraft, I had a growing sense of how I was being manipulated by the game's mechanics—not in the interests of what is fun, but in the interests of keeping me reaching for my wallet.

I don't doubt these companies now employ psychologists who advise the developers on how best get players addicted and continue forking over cash by pressing the brain's reward buttons just so.
Click to expand...

My only head scratcher to your epiphany is your use of the word "now", should be replaced with "for a long time have", but I guess if you knew that, it wouldn't be an epiphany :)


Master_shake_ said:
i mean when you hold portions of games for ransom behind paywalls usually you get more money than the initial investment,

drug dealers call it a taste.

but even drug dealers give you the first taste for free.
Click to expand...

It was the first comparison to come to my mind when F2P games started rolling out, they are going to get the kids hooked for free and then the relentless nagging to parents to buy them stuff to continue playing the "free" game. So they are acting just like drug dealers giving the first taste for free.
 
tissimo said:
I spent probably $40 on csgo skins. I didn't open cases but just bought what I wanted... so I supported it in a way. I am part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Why is it a problem? If it supports game development its a good thing, especially in a game like csgo where the skin doesnt give you any significant advantage. Look at all the development that has been poured into that game with skins and events
 
grtitan said:
The problem is, nobody is willing to sacrifice anything to stop crap like this. The selfishness level these days is off the scale.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say nobody, I'm somebody and I've put a stop to it by never starting. There just isn't enough people to put a stop to it, it's an age old problem with advertising and the majority retreat from most parents taking an active roll in raising their kids, too many are letting TV raise them and a self absorbed, me me me world is what becomes.
 
Eventually people will figure out this system is bad and will just stop buying it. OverWatch maybe popular now but those Loot crates have another hidden cost. Unlike TF2 you can't make your own skins or maps or models. The game is stuck to whatever Blizzard feels like putting in the game. One of these days there's going to be an equivalent to ET that'll cause another crash for the gaming industry, just with micotransactions.
 
rudy said:
Why is it a problem? If it supports game development its a good thing, especially in a game like csgo where the skin doesnt give you any significant advantage. Look at all the development that has been poured into that game with skins and events
Click to expand...

It makes the game look damn silly. It tears apart any bit of immersion you had when you see Hello Kitty (or My Little Pony these days?) guns and guys wearing santa hats running around. So in the case of CS:GO, it does hurt the game. Visuals are not the only thing that make a game, but the style and design of the artwork plays a big role in any game. The problem with doing this the CS:GO way is we get shit art direction and the game world looks like something straight out of an 8 year old's mind. If you make the entire game tongue in cheek, thing Shadow Warrior, that is one thing. Or if your game naturally has that art style, such as a Mario title. But when you throw that crap into Battlefield, CS and similar, it does hurt the game.

Playing CS:GO not only looked damn ridiculous, but the menu was like navigating a flea market. Another shortcoming of having hundreds of eyesore cosmetics. Lots of pop ups and notifications of what new idiotic skin was coming out and whatnot. CS:GO is an example of what not to do. If they had done it tastefully and kept the aesthetics of the game within reason I wouldn't mind it. But when you put any and every fugly cosmetic that comes to mind into a game just to make a few cents, you're a low level shovelware developer.
 
Have to say, I don't understand it at all. Maybe I'm getting too old remembering the good ol days when you bought the game off a shelf in the store and that was it.

Only time I have purchased dlc was for bioshock infinite. That was only because the 2 part dlc was a full game! Hard to feel ripped off when it's like a new game, same engine or not.

I'll never understand dlc. Now get off my lawn you damn kids.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
...which means that there will never go away.

People keep complaining, but as long as they pay, they continue to incentivise this awful behavior.

The only way these things will stop is if everyone boycotts them.
Click to expand...
People that pay the for this crap are not the ones complaining about it. So it seems they out weight the complainers. O wouldn't have a problem with it if it just cosmetic but now they putting game content behind loot boxes or they artificially make the grind insane to get you to buy the OP weapons or content. Some games even have the nerve to hide the ending behind DLC.
 
FTA:

"Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content," the report said. "Publishers seek to meet these expectations and have adopted a 'games as a service' model, releasing fewer titles over time while keeping players engaged longer with regular updates and add-ons."

Um, I must be a cheap bastard then because I will wait until:

1) The game is stable.
2) The game's DLC, if there is any, is out and done.
3) The game is on sale.
4) I still want to play the game after waiting it out.

There are very few exceptions to that rule for me. One is the latest Wolfenstein series and the other is the South Park series. Everything else can wait while I try to catch up on my backlog of games.

Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.
 
Not what people expected when PC was made great again huh?
 
People voting with their wallets... In the wrong direction.
Seriously is there any examples of voting with wallets that ever worked?
 
tissimo said:
I spent probably $40 on csgo skins. I didn't open cases but just bought what I wanted... so I supported it in a way. I am part of the problem.
Click to expand...

At least they had a way to just buy what you want. I hate those lootboxes, but luckily enough. Just keep lvling in Overwatch to get a free lootbox. Depending how much you play and how good you are, you can get 1 free lootbox a day.

Just hate how they're time sensitive for Overwatch. Where you can only get those specific lootboxes during an event. Sometimes, get lucky and get what I want within a few lootboxes. Then I can go back to just playing a few games a day and not be on there for hours.
 
Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content," the report said. "Publishers seek to meet these expectations and have adopted a 'games as a service' model, releasing fewer titles over time while keeping players engaged longer with regular updates and add-ons.
Click to expand...

No, publishers flooded the market with dlc. You just don't see a whole lot of $60 games + a couple expansions anymore outside of Civilization and the Sims series. There's been a race to the bottom in terms of content while developers focus on making money from micro-transactions and DLC.

Even companies I love like Paradox Interactive have gotten into trouble with their fans over this. They made a lot of profit off the people willing to pay full price for immediate access to games/expansions rather than wait for a sale. They tried to do the same thing with their DLC packs and overpriced them. People aren't happy about paying $10-20 for $5 worth of light cosmetic and story content... repeatedly. Everyone just waits for Steam sales now.
 
In the words of Jim Sterling:

If you are going to have DLC and microtransaction the game better be free to play. If i enjoy the game, and only if I enjoy it and it doesn't become a fee to play/pay to wi, will I spend money on it.

This isn't a direct quote, but it holds so true. If you make a game that I have to pay to access and play then everything should be included in it upon purchase. If the game is free and I thoroughly enjoy it and I don't feel I have to buy into anything, then i see no reason not to support through other purchases.

The AAA game industry seems to think that they are offering us some unique experience with DLC, microtransactions, skins, pre-orders, etc. But it couldn't be further from the truth.

I can imagine many of you being able to play and unlock all these by beating the game, getting achievements, and doing difficult tasks.
 
Tripled the value for developers and inversely reduced the value to gamers. Yes, people still buy them but one can't help feel like gaming - the fun of it - is being held hostage.
 
I don't mind microtransactions and DLC if they are implemented correctly. I take issue with blatant money grabs or unfair advantages. So basically if I buy a complete $60 game and they add DLC later for a small charge that is fine. However if portions of the game are blatantly cut out (Day 1 DLC being the most obvious offender), then screw that. I future don't mind things like skins and other cosmetics being purchasable. Again however P2W type purchases make a game an instant NO from me.
 
Best course of action, IMHO, is just to wait for the Game of the Year edition most inevitably come out.

At least they'll have *most* of the DLCs already incorporated into the game.

Other than that, the rest are usually inconsequential or pointless to your average layman. IMHO the worst offenders are the single player booster packs, P2W is also bad, but I very seldomly play games that pay 2 win can actually win you something meaningful, as I tend to avoid any games that have any sort of human vs humans interactions.
 
A study was really necessary for this? Of course this was the result of in game sales. As long as you have greed stricken kids and parents that willy-nilly buy sh*t just to shut them up this is a dynamic that rakes in the cash! If it didn't work it wouldn't have been around for so long! This is a trend that will continue...
 
Honestly this is why I wait for the "Game of the Year" versions instead of getting the game out of the gate. It includes all patches, all/if not most DLC, and is a "complete" game for 1/3 the price. It's very rare now I get a game at launch especially now considering review embargoes and such. Sometimes it's all hype and then the game lacks any real substance.
 
I agree with others that at this point its best to wait for the GOY editions too.

On a parallel note-how is this really any different from the increased proprietary streaming strategies were seeing now? Pay a little more for these channels, and a little more for those channels Seems the same to me.
 
RayderR6 said:
I wouldn't say nobody, I'm somebody and I've put a stop to it by never starting. There just isn't enough people to put a stop to it, it's an age old problem with advertising and the majority retreat from most parents taking an active roll in raising their kids, too many are letting TV raise them and a self absorbed, me me me world is what becomes.
Click to expand...
Agreed, since I also dont entertain this bullshit, so rephrasing, the big majority of people, instead of nobody.
 
Remember when games used to be complete and you didn't have to buy a $40 "season pass" to play the whole thing? Pepperidge farm remembers.

When I was a youth and had my C64, there were software stores (Elecronics Boutique, Babbages, etc) that would offer refunds for games no questions asked. Yes I know Steam offers refunds now but that's hardly inclusive (and their guidelines are strict, you better know right away you hate something or not)
 
A friend was telling me about Crusader Kings 2. He had the complete version with all the DLC (I won't say anything about how he got it). As he was describing the game, I thought it sounded much like the type of game I wanted to play, so I looked into it. The base game is only about $40.00. But to make the game as epic as I wanted, I'd have to purchase nearly all the current DLC, which would make it almost $270!!!!

Now, I do have a couple ways to think about this. Perhaps to make the game of the scope and style that I want, it is a $270.00 game. If it had been made one game, complete with all the content that makes it playable the way I want, the up-front cost is prohibitive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top