"Games are too expensive to make thus microtransactions are necessary"

^^^ The thread title is what we often ear from devs/pubs and forum apologists to justify the implementation of microtransactions/loot boxes/DLC. This following video presents some good evidence why this may not be nothing more than yet another lie coming from the gaming industry to trick the most gullible idiots out there

So, what's your take on all of this? Are microtransactions/loot boxes a "necessary evil" or just yet another filthy scheme of money grubbing companies?

Publishers are greedy. Who would have thought.

I think the answer is probably somewhere in between.

Microtransactions don't really bother me because I rarely buy them. But when they decide to charge you for shit that should've already been a part of the game like hard mode I call bs

Some of the same people complaining about endangered single player games, and micro-transactions/ loot boxes/ post purchase costs... are also complaining about lack a fidelity or anything less than 8-billion polygons per blade of grass.

Something has got to give folks

Microtransactions are out of control now.

as long as they don't effect balance who cares.

I say, let them cannibalize themselves with bloated budgets and lack of vision... I'll be playing indies, which truthfully have been kicking big budgets ass for years now.

EA's stock...which I used to own at 27 a share is now absurdly high. I doubt that's because they're hurting and struggling.

This is a lie they've *managed to perpetuate* and it somehow became common knowledge.

Microtransactions and Loot Boxes are the cherry on top of a very lucrative sundae. When was the last time they updated their game engines for goodness sake? Slap a new number on the box and make lots of cash.

I have no problem when micros are implemented like Rainbow Six Seige. Free maps and micros for cosmetics and fast tracking unlocks of operartors.

What I dont like Activision and CODWW2, paid dlc for maps and microtransactions. Their going out everyway possible to make a profit when maps should be free and they could be just profitting off of cosmetic loot crates.

To be fair, Frostbite is constantly being updated, but only because DICE actually cares. Lol

You should talk to Activision about engine updates, considering they've been using the same one since 2001.

The problem is not the games being expensive to make. It's the advertisement budget allocation is what's killing the game.

And you have MS to thank for that.

There wouldn't be a problem with Microtransactions if publishers weren't so damn dirty with them.

It went from "optional" and "non intrusive" to basically requiring you to open more and more and more lootboxes... and finding out most of these systems are designed around giving you crap, teasing you with gold, so you'd always come back for more.

We can't trust publishers they'll do right with microtransactions. As they already have psychologists and other experts trying to squeeze the most out of people.

I mean what is this SHIT ??????

Apparently wanting less diversity, less risk, and more stable income is bad thing. His entire argument is that games aren't too expensive, it's that publishers don't want to take increased risks and greatly increase the amount of products and variables they have to control. He keeps saying the publishers were "doing well" by 2010, but he's conveniently leaving out the publishers and developers that have gone bust in this same period of time. He's deliberately focusing on successful companies who managed to stay successful as a way to say that they didn't "need" to do this.

He's full of shit. These publishers are surviving and thriving because they are adapting. They realized that more stable income through microtransactions rather than fighting DLC models is going to keep them alive and thriving better. Other developers and publishers didn't do this and are hurting. Game publishing was a riskier business than he's willing to admit. EA, Activision, and Ubisoft have always done a good job of mitigating that risk through adapting

He really cherry picked his examples here and people are eating it up because it's what they want to hear.

He insists that these three publishers could have focused on making a lot more smaller games with smaller budgets and achieved the same result, and that is why he's an idiot. Many more smaller games with smaller budgets not only vastly increases the amount of variables a company must deal with, it completely ignores the demand that gamers have on the industry. Gamers have proven they want big budget, AAA titles. They want great graphics, high production values, and games with plenty of value. There's a thriving market on the game consoles for these games. This guy is insinuating that gamers would have accepted the death of AAA budget games in favor of basically mobile games. He's wrong.

This video is terrible, doesn't have a large enough sample size of the data, and ignores the actual market all to make his "point". He actually concludes that games do cost more to make now than they did before, but it wasn't necessary since the old way was fine and they didn't "need" to use microtransactions. I'm pretty sure THQ disagrees with that.

So games are more expensive to make than they were before and these publishers are utilizing microtransactions to stay more consistently profitable, mitigating risk, which makes them more stable.

He also ignores that since 2010 the demand of higher fidelity and more fully featured games has increased too. You just can't produce a game with the same amount of people as you could back in the 2000s. His only example of a modern game that was built for a small budget was fucking Hellblade which has 1/10th of the content of the latest Assassin's Creed game.

No. This guy is dumb. The only thing us as gamers need to do is continually vote with our wallets when the monitization practices become unattractive. It's that simple. We're hitting that point too. Microtransactions, specifically loot boxes, are starting to be really pushed against and already some developers have changed up their strategy. That's going to keep happening until a balance is achieved.

More loot box tears. I'll ask the question again. Can anyone name a non Korean game where lootboxes actually matter beyond cosmetics? I havent played a game yet where I was required to buy the lootboxes.

Almost all of them also make most of the stuff in the lootboxes obtainable by just playing the game and getting free lootboxes.

I actually like the lootboxes systems in some games. The REQ system in Halo is great. I've never paid money in Halo 5.

I think a lot these people are just crying about not being able to play dress up with their characters for the $59.99 base price.

Change your hobby and buy dolls instead.

I knew some cud chewer would try to equate this. You know what mainstream games popularized microtransactions?

TF2. LoL. DoTA. CSGO. Destiny. Overwatch. Please STFU.

@oflow: Halo 5 and Gears 4 are riddled with microtransactions. They have pay to win modes that revolve around them.

And Overwatch is one of the only games that does microtransactions right because they are cosmetic only. If every game handled them like that it wouldn't be an issue.

@NathanDrakeSwag: Nothing in Halo 5 costs money to play. Please STFU. You dont know what you are talking about, especially concerning games you dont play.

Overwatch isnt one of the only games that does it right. Almost all the games I play have lootboxes and I havent bought any with real money.

It's a trade-off, the additional monitization helps up production values. They're not necessary, but neither is playing technically ambitious games.

All companies will need to raise prices over time due to inflation, more or less. Video games have been $50-60 for a long time ($60 during cart days, $50 during ps1 and ps2, then back to $60).

Companies like EA would rather have a tiered system (good, better, best) where some pay more and some pay less. Some have tons of microtransactions.

Really, they simply need to raise prices more often. To $70 or $80 or whatever. It will really impact only early adopters, as games drop in price so fast (which actually helps devs/pubs get more money than they would otherwise believe it or not, as price and sales have an inverse relationship).

Great video though. I'm glad someone is putting in the time to research and call companies out on their BS.

@Wasdee: THQ failed basically because it way overestimated demand for the WII garbage products. Before 2010 was a different time and is hard to compare to now. Companies made more games and took more risks. Now they make less games monetize the profitable ones. It's a great strategy, but it also allows for competition to creep in and slow eat away at their market share. I believe over time some of these giant publishers may dissolve. Eventually you have to take some risks in business.

I think you're discounting the video a bit too much. He has financial statements as evidence, while you have nothing, yet you claim on high your opinion is correct.

Whatever, continue to discredit this video and bury your head in the sand. Like I said, they could have raised prices.

Call of duty has never made enough money to cover development costs, marketing costs, a 300% margin and the CEO's annual bonus on its' own, so the loot boxes, on top of the minimum effort map pack DLC, are essential :|

Utter bullshit. Never believed it for a second, I refuse to believe EA or Ubisoft are in "need" of money.

I am absolutely not fond of the direction consoles have gone in. I thought the way it worked on the Xbox 360 was more balanced but even that pushed things. Thinking back, I spent SO much last gen it doesn't bare thinking about. But now they've taken the milking to the extreme imo.

@TheEroica: I agree. While Horizon and Gravity Rush 2 certainly hold strong, Axiom Verge murders anything put out by EA recently.

Won't be long and they'll monetize every aspect of games. I hate online gaming I hope they start charging you for bullets.

Let me give you an example:

Think A publisher has spend:

1.200 million dollars on marketing.

2.100 million dollars on development costs.

And then the game they made only managed to sell 4 million copies after 1 year.

How much money they have made ? 4 million X 60 Dollars=240 million dollars ! Regardless that I have assumed that they have manage to sell all their 4 million copies in full Price(Which is impossible), it's still a failure.

So in order to cover the Development Costs they have to add DLCs and Microtransactions .

Imo publishers should instead make less budget heavy games instead.(Maybe with less than 15 million dollars on Development)

Publishers are full of shit.

Maybe if they stopped having games with stupidly bloated budgets that need to sell 10 million copies just to break even...

Never seen such an ass-backwards industry.

This. People love to take the extremes for some odd reason.

Here is something good about Monster Hunter World.

No Loot Boxes in Monster Hunter: World, Dev Says It Wants the Game to Be Rewarding

@csward: I agree with you about the base price of video games. They need to raise the price of games as costs go up in development. 80 dollars is not unreasonable for the price of games. Maybe then we would see less micro transactions in games if developers/publishers make more money up front.

I'll watch the video later but just thinking of inflation and how everything is more expensive than it was 20 years ago, not to mention the maintenance aspect of games now(post -release patches, online maintenance, Etc.) I dont understand how high profile games would not cost much, much more than before .

Outside of some isolated examples(success stories who made more than anticipated for example), I believe some AAA games can get away with limited or no Microtransacrions because the high profile publishers usually have their cash cows that can absorb the loss of such a game. Otherwise, I think something extra is required if its not microtransacrions it could be season passes, the 60$ flat fee AAA blockbuster model is clearly struggling to me(overall, of course some exceptions )

@oflow: People often stick to the negatives when obsessed with a point, previously it was "Season passes that Locked content and segregated communities between those who didn't have the dlc and those who did). "

So devs like 343i and Gears 4 The Coalition they listened to the feedback and all the maps are free to all standard edition owners. There is no season pass in Halo 5, and the Season pass for Gears 4 only gives you certain perks.

In an ideal world I would prefer no microtransacrions, but when I see a dev do things like this and not design the game around pay to win, I'm fine with it, even if this sometimes results in a steeper grind, as long as not too unreasonable. But you never see people talking about that no, just focus on the negatives.

@Alucard_Prime: Imo the grind in Gears 4 is not reasonable though. You'd have to play like 10+ matches 2000 credits. (Price of most of the limited time packs) Then you only have a small chance to land one of the characters that they advertise. You usually wind up with weapon skins. Then there's the abysmal amount of scrap you get for destroying your cards.

Instead of randomized boxes they should just let you save up the resources and buy whatever you want or pay real money. Gears 4 is the only lootbox game I've played enough to talk about, and if it's on the better side of the spectrum to I shudder to think what other games are like.

@AsadMahdi59: Most of it is optional cosmetics stuff, those extra characters I've sometimes gotten on the first try, other times I never got them, so the person who decides to pay money for packs instead of grinding is mostly getting extra skins and characters who have no impact on the gameplay really.

One of things this does is make certain characters hard to get, making them more unique....I like that, it means you might not see much of that special character or Skin, because the loot boxes are so random. If your chances of getting one was higher, most people would quickly get those skins/characters and you would see them all over the place.

The other thing is how often you play the game, they do a lot of special events and things like credit bonuses for logging in daily and on your first wins, etc. I think the biggest sticking point for people is Horde, where the skill cards give you an advantage, but you don't absolutely need them to play and can be skillful and just enjoy the game like that. You can get a ton of more credits by bumping up the difficulty to Insane to get bigger payouts. The grind did not bother me personally, I had a lot of fun playing horde but I can understand the criticisms there. It's not a perfect system, some things could have been done better, but I see the effort in trying to make it reasonable with what they did with the season pass and with making most of it optional cosmetics stuff. They do a lot of Esports tournaments as well, and most of the cosmetics stuff revenue is meant to support that for prize pools.

Agreed. More like: their execs are in "need" of a couple more million dollar vacation homes and supercars.

That video is total bullshit and is just catering to the entitled gamer demographic for clicks. Congrats TC, you fell for it.

Fifa guys:

1) Andrew Wilson – Electronic Arts – $5.63 million

2) "According to Electronic Arts officer Rich Hilleman, 'the price of producing console games has rocketed, with marketing costing up to three times more than the development of a title.'"

3) According to an investigation by the Colombian magazine Dinero, the production and development of the football video game FIFA 16 is comparable to that of a production of Hollywood movie of the Spiderman size, and has had a total cost of $ 350 million.

4) there are way more gamers then ever before that give out way more money.

Basically they are full of crap.

With those insane salary's, who needs to earn 5,6m a year?, insane marketting that nobody asks for. I'm sure development is hella expensive.

wouldn't be shocked if the real cost for that fifa game wouldn't be more then 30-40m.

Keep in mind we are talking about fifa here. freaking fifa. lamo

Microtransactions are a disease. People could end up spending literally thousands of US dollars in microtransactions on a single game.

@GameboyTroy: So it’s the developers fault that people aren’t wise with their money? And what successful business model would includes ignoring revenue streams?

The greatest con ever pulled was making you believe that he is you.

Some of you believe that they need more money. Everybody needs more money. It's not an argument. It's not the point.

Scamming or 'influencing' people out of money through fairground tricks or casino techniques is not going to change this problem. It will make games more expensive, prettier, less ethical, and it will make them more money. It will make them more powerful and give them more control over our laws and rights. And then, they will need more money. It's not the point.

@Gatygun: "with marketing costing up to three times more than the development of a title.'"

They spend way more on marketing?

NFS Payback will have microtransactions in it.

https://wccftech.com/dev-microtransactions-games-expensive/

Ghost Games is about to launch Need for Speed Payback (out on November 10th; stay tuned for our review), which will also contain microtransactions in the form of card drops, as explained by Nilsson.

Man, screw this. I think Janina Gavankar is right. It's happening right now. Games are becoming loot boxes. They're becoming slot machines. They're building in ways to reward us to act as advertisers. They're getting patents to have bots pretending to be players that sell items to you. Patenting how to elaborately screw matchmaking to make you just frustrated enough with an item that you will buy it to continue playing. That's all happening in the past few weeks. All in 2017, what I would otherwise call one of the best years in gaming. They saw their opportunity to sneak this in while everyone was on a high. Heck, Battlefront 2 blatantly putting in pay to win? The silly argument of 'just ignore lootboxes' has become invalid. The games are getting worse if you ignore them. Wake up, damnit!

This shift of our games turning into worse than mobile games is happening RIGHT NOW. Not in a year, but right now. And if we as gamers want to stop it, we'll have to act real soon. I'm pretty fucking angry at the reviewers who let COD just get away with the 'social point' crap and the 'just cosmetics' lie. They also drop XP boosts. Are those cosmetic too? Huh.

We are going to need a serious thread on this, maybe a sticky, in SW. It's bigger than SW but it will need to be here, too.

I would advice people to make sure this topic is at least mentioned once in every message board and forum that houses passionate gamers. Think of forums in your country and language. We need everyone to be at least a bit aware of this change in gaming and mentally prepared to take action before things start moving.

I have never insisted these things are necessary, but I have insisted this is natural when we consider A) its a business, maximizing profit is the purpose, not helping the consumer; B) its run by human beings and everyone wants a piece of the pie; C) as any industry gets popular or grows more and more ways to make money in it are introduced. That's life kids. You can cry as people did as film began to really take off with the addition of sound but it didn't stop humans from profiteering in that industry. Another thing to remember is an artist can demand a high price for their work. Graphic artists do not have a minimum wage. The better ones can demand high pay for their work, driving up the budget of a project much like a major actor does in film. As the video narrator points out, the physical cost of making a game is dropping due to digital but are people really so naïve to believe he or we are the first to notice this? The people at publishing companies and development companies see this first and who do you think gets their hand into the pie first for that freed up cash? It isn't going to get passed onto us, the consumers. Wake up, that just isn't in the definition of capitalism.

No they aren't necessary but the only way to stop them is a mass consumer boycott. Its the same with sports. When a strike in the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB takes place fans always bitch and moan that its billionaires arguing with millionaires about money, and I agree. But once there is a new CBA the fans are buying tickets, jerseys, posters, watching games. You want it to stop, EVERYONE will have to agree. Get real. Humans cant all agree on important stuff like not killing each other, you expect them to do so on fvckin video games?

@cainetao11: I believe we can do it. If we can't, I don't see people stand against corporate in any other industry. We're one of the few industries in which we've won on several occasions. Granted that wasn't against the biggest corporate monsters we know of. This is the greatest challenge so far, but I think we should at least have a shot at this. It could inspire many consumers in the future to not just give in. It just needs a bit of guidance and style. Not random death threats.

Think it's gettin real close to time for another market crash. The publishers are getting scummier by the game.

@Vaasman: I'm thinking we wait for now, aside from spreading the word. It will 100% certainly take less than a year for some of these bigger companies to **** up. Probably more like a week to a month. Let's get everyone mentally ready to do something. They're too greedy to wait that long. The next big **** up might be the time for all of us to do something, no matter how small that something is.

Maybe we can start accumulating all the things about 'micro'transactions that we don't like. And maybe examples of their past transgressions. And think of the things within the boundaries of the law that we can do. Besides the obvious boycotts.