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

Jup 3 times more as they said.

Which means that's a bit less then 90m for the game development. Sadly they pay some people into the 6m salary's which result in the real development costs probably be far lower like 20-40m realistically.

I got the feeling, that marketting company is just there to push money out of the company into some people's pockets. You see that happen a lot in industry's. And cover it up as costs for something that really has no value attanced towards it like marketting.

If you look currently on origin at PC / PS4 for example.

1) standard fifa 18 edition = 59,99 euro's

2) ronaldo edition = 79,99 euro

3) icon edition = 89,99 euro.

So on average they get 77 euro's for a single game. if people buy it through origin which only costs them some traffic and that's it. so lets say 75 bucks profit.

fifa 17 sold like 7m copy's in its first week and 11m ( but probably with discounts in total ), that's 525-825m they get out of it. Obviously that's going to be lower as it's not equality split over the different editions, but so are there reported costs.

Let's say there real costs are 50m, yea gg.

WIth the digital market they will profit even more then ever before from it year after year.

Please tell us your Live gamertag or post proof you play either of those games. Myself and oflow play them and have never ever had to buy a REQ or crate in either game. You're a liar.

Its been done in many industries before. In the 1990s the breakfast cereal industry was charging $4.99/box for cereal. That was very expensive almost 30 years ago and people stopped buying. I remember the 20/20 expose about it and the subsequent ad campaigns by General Mills among other cereal manufacturers apologizing for the pricing of their products. Its not impossible. But that's food, a necessity. Video games are a luxury, a hobby. I am not going to bust my ass all day come home tired and NOT play what I want to play just because it has optional microtransactions in it. I will continue to do what I do now, not buy them. People need to realize in order to motivate the masses things have to get dire and optional loot crates aren't dire at this point.

Even if you don't buy into micro transactions, the games are still worth $60 easy. Todays entertainment cost per hour ratio is really high compared to the cost of games in the past.

So pay $60 with your choice of buying micro transactional items or pay $80 with no choice?...makes sense.

I would disagree with Overwatch doing it even remotely right.

The skins are starting to make it hard to identify characters in the blink of an eye, the skins are sometimes temporarily available during events and hey, they're suddenly a little more expensive if you wanted to use your coins on them. Huh, wonder how that happens...

No, Blizzard can't do microtransactions right either. Besides, you have to buy the outfits through randomized boxes? That's bullshit.

@pimphand_gamer: @cainetao11:

You both seem to be thinking loot boxes are going to remain a choice. Like they're completely optional. You didn't see the news about those patents? You know where this is going. They're so optional that you now have questlines in a COD game to stare at what other people get from loot boxes so that you can get nice and jealous. They're so optional that I stopped playing Shadow of War when I got to Act 4 cause of the lovely grind it introduces, completely not because they're selling you what you need of course. And so optional that that new Star Wars game is totally not going to screw me over against people who bought a couple hundred boxes to get some legendaries so that they have more health.

OK. What needs to happen for you two to think that this is becoming a big deal? Do you need to be personally affected before you realize where we are at? Am I wrong about any of this? I think this is starting to become a pretty big deal.

I'm not attacking you. I just don't understand where you're at in the thought process.

When COD became a success, you must have seen that other companies were trying to replicate that success, right? Have you seen the amount of $ they are making with microtransaction systems? GTAV online making like $500 million. Around $650 million from Extra Team in Fifa. I think we can't just avoid a couple of the worst games and hope that these systems won't come to the majority of AAA games. And I also don't think, but maybe you do and I would love to hear why, that loot boxes are remaining optional (if you want to have a good time).

@Wasdie: Excellent post dude. Its as you said, people like what his video says so to them its the be all end all truth of the matter. The other thing I notice is the reaction I get from people is akin to "How dare you defend corporate America!!!"

But as you pointed out the gaming community act like they don't clamor for better graphics, AI, fidelity and high end everything. We always want cutting edge. Look at the bragging about graphics that is done by gamers all over the place. That shit costs. Does it cost so much that its forcing those big 3 to go into the red? No, but is that the cliff they have to go to? Nobody goes into business to just keep their head above water. The goal is maximizing profit not forum love and praise. The same people that point out the greediness of publishers aren't fvckin saints walking on water in this life either but you'd swear to God they were with how easily they condemn others.

Like I said previously they may not be necessary but it is very much human nature in business to maximize ways to make money. Every industry does it when it goes too far the masses rebel and it balances back down.

@valgaav_219: Exactly!

If microtransactions were optional and didnt take away from the gaming experience, for example, the historical use of dlc and expansions then I'd be "meh" about the whole thing. The problem is, microtransactions have become a part of numerous sp games, on top of that they have almost taken skill out of the equation in mp games and with the addition of loot boxes they've now added gambling as a hook.

The games industry is a sham...a barely concealed ,worse than Hollywood sham.

Become mandatory. That's what. What is mandatory in Shadow of War? Why could you not finish, read that closely please, not why wouldn't you finish, why couldn't you as in there was a wall or barrier to finishing the game that required the purchase of a loot crate?

That's my point it may be going to a point where its d a dire situation but when it does history repeats itself. People rebel, the industry has a bit of a crash and things balance out. I'm not afraid of this happening and unlike others I accept that human nature does this.

Alright. I think they were mandatory if you wanted to finish Shadow of War on a positive note. Sure you can stop playing after Act 3 and I did pretty much that, and I think I got my money's worth out of it (barely). But to call that optional? I'd say they are not optional to the degree that they have a negative impact on the game as a whole. And I didn't get to choose not to have that negative impact, without paying up.

If they were not in there, and Act 4 was designed to be good, I would have rated it higher. So they are technically optional but they are a detriment to the game. They give you two bad options. And for me that is crossing a line. I already paid for the game, and now they want me to pay more to finish it. Of course they do. I understand that's the nature of business. And of course I want to pay less. You understand that part too, luckily. (People tend to forget that part.) That is also the nature of business. And now I think we are getting to that point that the people rebel. I'm glad you're not afraid of that but I think we're getting there. At least, I'm ready for it. And I'm a very passionate gamer so I am sure that I am a little ahead on the rebel curve. But if I'm here, others won't be far behind.

But this is the problem. All of that is your personal opinion on the game. Not whether it was factually mandatory. You're entitled to any opinion or preference in this life, but so am I. And at this point I haven't encountered a game I wish to play that has MANDATORY microtransactions. And until they do I wont stop buying video games. I will buy and play what I wish to and just continue to not buy the microtransactions.

It will never be possible to say it is factually mandatory. You could always choose to have a bad time with a game and plow through, enjoy uneven fights, or a free portion endlessly. I'm sure there are people who could. Much like the quality of a game it can't be objectively determined but there are some standards. I can say it's beneath our standards. You'll run into it yourself, eventually. You don't need to trust my word on it. Or the others. The only danger with that is you may miss out on the opportunity to do something about it. By then the ship may have sailed. Hmm, I don't like the idea of letting things go as bad as they can be before doing something about it.

@KungfuKitten: haven’t played sow yet, but how did act 4 make it mandatory to buy the loot crates??

@djoffer: Well you run out of main story quests for xp. So the xp you get takes a nosedive. Which is tied to how good your orcs can be. And then you need to defend all your fortresses which are being invaded by much higher level orcs. Ok, a challenge. And you do that 20 times. You don't get enough in-game currency to upgrade your fortresses, or at least I didn't seem to, and it becomes a complete drag of losing and retaking fortresses. It's a simple grind to get to the rest of the ending. For the average player it looks to be like 15 hours without any story or, well anything interesting at all happening in between.

I didn't play through the whole of Act 4 myself. It was pretty clear the in-game rewards were designed to be pretty meager to entice you to spend some real money. You literally see any progress you make just slow down to a crawl. I got the impression they were told or were going to try and sell these boxes and then chickened out. So they designed 2/3 of the game as they normally would, aside from the 'sign up for our newsletter' xp bullshit and advertisements in the main menu, and then decided to make their move in the last third hoping that people were going to not complain too much by that point.

For all intends and purposes play it to the normal ending in act 3 and then just look up the ending of act 4. I guess that's the best 'option' in this case.

@KungfuKitten: thanks for clarifying, and yeah that just moved SOW to a must buy the second I have time to a new game, to buy somewhere down the line when it’s on sale!

No its below YOUR standards. You don't decide standards for me or anyone else but yourself. Get off the pedestal guy. I know a few people that have enjoyed Shadow of War and they didn't buy any microtransactions in it.

Having a good time with any entertainment is subjective to each individual. You seem to think there is some standard floating above us all that is we are bound to. I am not. I was raised to be my own man and decide things for my self by my own convictions.

Raising base prices isnt going to make microtrans or lootboxes go away or even solve anything. It will only force more people to wait till price drop(which always happen very very quickly) so it actually will reduce their launch upftont income.

It might also turn off people from big budget games wholly for alternative games or entertainment. While inflation is a real thing peoples income globally isnt exactly keeping pace on a uniform basis.

@cainetao11: I'm just saying, like a cook can say that something tastes good or not, or a barber can say a certain hairstyle looks good or not, that I can say Shadow of War's microtransaction system is bad. It's not a pedestal. There are certain standards that just exist by virtue of having multiple games exist. And pretty much any game in existence does it better. I mean, you don't feel this way about every review you read I hope. They're all judging games based on standards and their personal taste. Comparing games to games.

I'm sure some people will enjoy a bad game. I enjoy a bad meal from time to time, standards be fucked.

LMAO But a cook is a member of that industry. Are you a game developer or publisher? If so, lets see the resume of games you made/published.

I never said you cant say those things, I said they have no bearing on anyone but you. No, there isn't a magical set of standards that were placed for us gamers by the gaming gods. Each of us creates and lives by his/her own standards. Why would you want to be held to some set of standards you had no say in creating? Why would want to live like this? You decide what you like, what is of value to you. Unless you don't. Maybe you like letting Metacritic or Gamespot tell you what is good/bad in gaming. I don't live like that. I decide for myself what I value, what is good/bad, fun or not. Nobody else does for me. My only standard for entertainment is, am I having fun?

Mmmmmm.... Capitalism and the desire to get the most bang for your buck

Hmm OK I think we're not understanding each other because I wasn't saying that you need to be a member of an industry to understand it, or that you cannot decide for yourself what you think is good or bad.

400 to 600 people working on a Call of Duty using recycled assets and running on the same engine. Wtf are all these people doing?

@KungfuKitten: But you clearly said there are certain standards that just exist by having games exist. Who decides these standards? Why would anyone not involved in the deciding process have to recognize these standards? That's ridiculous and it's basically letting others make standards for you. It removes the responsibility of having to experience and process your own experiences. No thanks, that's not how I wish to live my life.

We're never going to end this XD

I think we're stumbling over the word standards. What I meant with standards is simply that when you buy a game for 60 dollars you can assume certain things about it. Basic things. Like you would expect the game to run if your hardware is adequate. That's what I would call a standard. If a game doesn't run it failed to live up to that standard and that's generally not good. Maybe there are people who like games that don't run, but generally speaking people are not going to like it and as passionate gamers we can sort of tell. We've seen it all a thousand times before. They are like expectations for the general consumer that come with that price point and product because there is precedence. We have seen many other games for 60 dollars, that do run, and therefore we generate a sort of set of expectations. We expect a game for 60 dollars to run.

I think it's not a stretch to say that one of those standards is that when you buy a game for 60 dollars, you don't expect to have to pay more to finish it like you would any other game. So that's why I say it's below our standards. I'm sure there are people overjoyed with the prospect of paying them more money or the game grinding to a halt so that you can spend many more hours doing that same gameplay loop 20 more times, because there are people who like anything. I would expect those people to be an exception. And based on online reception they are very much the exception.

Alright. I'll try to explain what I mean with the loot boxes and standards through exaggeration to make it more clear. There was a big earthquake in Lalaland and on the news they tell me that the situation is bad. I think most people wouldn't feel the need to visit Lalaland in person to experience the earthquake or the aftermath of it for themselves, to confirm that it's a pretty bad situation. They would hear it on the news and be like 'Yeah that sounds bad.' Of course there will be people who love earthquakes and they will be jumping up and down in excitement, so I can't say it's entirely objectively a bad situation as long as there are people enjoying it. But I can somewhat believe that the earthquake is not good for the standards of living in Lalaland. What I'm trying to say is, there's been an earthquake in Mordor, at around Act 4.

@KungfuKitten: There's a difference in us, no doubt. I dont even let a game being broken be considered below standard.

By standards i mean the subjectivity of entertainment. Something working or not working isn't subjective. It either works or doesn't. Someone liking broken stuff may be subjective but that's so below what we were discussing.

Is there an end to the campaigns story in shadow of war without the requirement of buying microtransactions? If so, they aren't mandatory. Now you may not like the ending, I certainly haven't liked the ending of many games, that doesn't negate it being the end of the game.

@cainetao11: Well thank you for not being aggressive about it and for not letting it go. I'm sure most people who saw this would think we have a little too much time to waste. I like reading the thoughts of people who think of things differently than I do. It forces you to think differently. That's when I learn something new. It would be a poor man who thinks of things in only one way. When people get angry at each other it's usually a disagreement, and disagreements are usually misunderstandings. It's better to just talk about any of those, like we did, so that we eventually see exactly where the disagreement came from.

If I had called you names you would have thought differently of me, if you had called me names I would have thought differently of you, and we would both be none the wiser. Still that is what happens online, I guess because it is so impulsive to type things from a distance and hit enter. And our first thoughts are rarely the best. I get tempted sometimes. That is why these moments are important.

@KungfuKitten: Well said. I agree and have seen enough from this discussion to tweet two friends about shadow of war in order to learn more about the grind and microtransactions. Thank you.

I have a past of being a wise ass and Insulting on SW. I really don't want to be that guy anymore. It's just such a part of growing up in NYC. We kind of expect it of each other here. But this old dog is trying to grow.

Another reason why MP modes or MP games only don't appeal to me.

@KungfuKitten: Those are kind of flimsy excuses. 'Cant recognize a character in a blink of an eye'? I've never had that problem. I dont play OW but I play Paladins and Smite which also has the same type of lootcrates.

'Cost going up during events?' You still get coins from just playing and can still buy the boxes for free.

The *only* semi legit criticisms I can actually see about the lootbox system is that the RNG gods might hate you and you just dont get the items you want when other people have it, or they could potentially be rigged so the items dont pop for you like a slot machine.

But isnt that really just like not getting loot you want to drop from a raid boss in WoW or Destiny? I know I ran many raids in WoW dozens of times and never got certain items to drop for me or lost the rolls.

Seems like the exact same principle to me. Not to mention the cosmetics were never promised to you as part of the base game. They are items to incentivize you to play more and not meant for everyone to have. Thats part of their appeal you have stuff others dont.

I dont buy the argument that just because you buy a game you are entitled to every piece of content in it automatically, especially rewards and cosmetics. Just like top tier end game raiders have items 90-percent of the playerbase wont have in WoW, I view it as the same concept.

Really want that item? Do some git gudden' and play more. or buy it. You have options. I havent bought one yet. Only microtransactions I've actually paid are in Elite Dangerous and thats for weapon color skins. But I actually do that more to support Frontier than actually caring a ton about the cosmetics.

Games like these require a ton of ongoing maintenance that costs money. I dont have an issue with them monetizing things like this.

Now as far as season passes go, I just dont buy them. I think $100 versions of games is worse than microtransactions and if given the choice I would definitely prefer Halo 5s format (the game has had like 20 free updates) with microtransactions than buy these $100 ultimate editions.

Well the problem with recognizing people in the blink of an eye is one I personally ran into. So that's why I mentioned it. I rez'd the wrong person cause I thought he was a different hero and it actually probably cost us the match. Granted, I hadn't played it in a while so I'm sure you can get used to all the skins by putting in an extra dozen hours I don't really feel like doing that.

You don't have the option to buy it. That is my biggest problem with the whole thing. You have the option to gamble with your money, that is true. Just like a raid, except it costs money for every pull on the lever. I wouldn't play a WoW raid if every time I wanted a chance for a drop it would cost me real money. And that is almost what this is like to me. You can play to earn the skins that you want, but the odds are so slim that it may just as well not be true. The coin system is a redeeming factor and that is why I only got angry about this a couple months in, when I started wanting some cool event skins.

And it's not just that things are more expensive during events - which is a complete dick move by the way - they are also time limited for no good reason other than making more money. Why not let people get halloween skins after halloween? They're cool skins. The people who got them are still going to use them after halloween.

I don't want them to promise me content, I want to have the content. Like in other normal games. If they want to make them special, add some gameplay challenges. Or at least lower the prices and let me buy a skin that I want. That would be what I want from Overwatch 2. I do get the point you are making, I think it's a good point, about skins being sort of exclusive because you can't just buy them. And I guess the time limited window adds to that. I hate that stuff. Especially the gambling with real money part. That may be a personal thing. I personally think Blizzard isn't one of the greats anymore, isn't good anymore, because of practices like this. They were my number 1 developer for some time.

They took away my Hearthstone DLC because it 'expired'. I only ever played against A.I. cause I don't like the stress of 1 on 1. They put the always online DRM into Diablo 3 making it worse than the free to play competition, terrible decision. Left the PC version to die after the console improvements. They flooded WoW with microtransactions. Skins, exclusive to their Blizzcon event. They fell hard, for me. I don't even consider them good anymore. They're just 'big' now. Like Activision. I guess that's appropriate given the circumstances.

Sorry if this is coming across as if Overwatch/Blizzard is the worst offender of loot boxes or something, but that's not true. There are way worse examples. I just really wanted it/them to be better about treating people. I'm not going to play their SMITE game, a game that I don't like, to get that skin I want. I'm not going to play competitively in a serious environment. Ok so I don't, right? I just don't get that reward. Yeah and that sucks. I feel like all their games are now made for a very specific type of very competitive gamer who plays hardly anything but Blizzard games because that seems to be their requirement for getting the cool stuff, and if I want to partake playing games the way I do I will get screwed out of cool stuff time and again. I feel like they just tossed me out, a really big fan of Blizzard. If they had an Overwatch version of like $100 that would contain all the skins, and you could get them through gameplay challenges, I would have bought that instead without a moments hesitation. If they had made a $60 offline version of Diablo 3, without auction house, with an economy designed with that in mind, I would have jumped on that. A $60 offline Hearthstone that you can play against A.I., with all the DLC campaigns in it, I would have freaking loved that. But what they are doing instead, I can't support that anymore. That's what is frustrating me.

That argument simply does not work. Some of the best games ever made are ones with modest to small budgets. It's the fault of both the consumers and competitors for demanding the latest technology be in their games. When done right, obviously, cutting edge tech can make for a truly great game. But is it absolutely necessary for a standard shooter to have an astronomical budget? No. It's not.

It's why I don't understand something like, say, GTAV, a game that was ludicrously expensive to make and market. For all the technology they crammed in their, it's just a clunky, dull open world crime game with a fairly limited number of things you can do.

Point being, big budget =/= great game. It can in the right hands, but a decently sized budget can also mean a great game in the right hands as well.

The slow death of physical media is killing gaming. More and more DLC, more and more half baked games with day 1 patches. Freemium is the future it looks like sadly.

How much has GTA V made from just microtransaction since being released in 2013? That's basically what publishers want to follow and I would not be surprised if all of them adopted that model.

Publishers need to learn some give and take. If you want shit loads of micro transactions, sell the main game for £20 - £25. I haven't bought many new console multiplats on the PC in years, it's just a waste of money. Not running out of games to play.

I would have gotten FH3, but there's just too much expensive content on top of the game, I'd know I'd want as someone who want to have complete games.

cainetao11: Post 47 nailed it. Basically, it's the American way.

That's not how supply and demand works. Publishers don't charge $60 for a game because they think it's a fair price. They charge sixty quid because research has shown them that's how much the market will bear and not a penny more. if publishers could charge $75 for a game and put microtransactions on top of it they would.

And I don't blame them. THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY. The market will determine what is too much. Complaining about it will not.

I am a big fan of Kawii Leonard. Dude makes $17 million/year. Do I think he works harder than a city construction worker out there repairing potholes in the hot sun or frigid cold for $40k/year? No I do not. But that is what the market bears for those two occupations. You don't earn what you are worth you earn what the market dictates for your services.

Same with games. As long as the market will bear microtransactions, publishers will continue to put it in games. When the market rejects this practice(i.e. when we stop buying the shyte) it will end.

I know how it works, but that wasn't my point. It's more than clear that product and service prices are maxed as hard as they can push. But if they're also pushing microtransactions, that's starting to move into other business models too.

If FH 3 was £20 and we knew there was free-to-play level of microtransactions, I'd understand and except that, but they're pushing full price plus a silly level of micro transactions. Yet I'm still aware there's a difference between what is and what should be.

Well publishers ought to reduce the price of digital releases, giving incentive to ditch the physical format. For example I have a switch and would prefer to buy digitally as it plays to the strength of the system, but when you look at prices the physical versions are often cheaper than the digital ones--doesn't make sense.

This is just messed up. I don't want to post the thumbnail.

https://youtu.be/sNquiINvKoo

Yeah this is our last chance to do something about it.

@Vatusus: I think Microtransactions is a good way for developers/publishers to make them less reliant on the total number of unit sales and also become less vulnerable to piracy , not to forget it makes sense that the developers who spend years on some games , don´t just stop but expand the life span of the game.

game used to cost 25k-50k to make and sold at 40-50 bucks. now they cost 100+ million and sell at 60 bucks. do the math.

What the hell. At least there are other games to buy that don't have MTX in them.

Red Dead Redemption 2 Will Likely Be Rife with Microtransactions

EA Pondering Subscription-Based Services Instead of Traditional Game Releases

It's a problem when it leaks on the single player games.

Otherwise, what else will the online poeple do? Wonder why they are doing the same thing over and over again?