Microtransactions: the Future of Games? (LootBoxes and Gambling)

[Deleted member 13524]

More on today's episode of Battlefront 2's Disaster Watch:


There's a user in reddit called kravguy who warned about EA's statement from last night just a couple hours before it happened, with enough precision about its contents to make him credible about being an insider.
Here is some more info that he leaked so far:

1 - EA didn't go forward with the pay2win gambling alone and without consent from Disney. Disney approved it, so the initial plan was a joint decision. Apparently Disney didn't mind it because it was becoming an industry standard. Maybe they didn't get how far EA was trying to reach, or they didn't care.. or they knew and cared and decided to gamble on it either way. I somehow doubt Disney knew about all the specifics because:

2 - EA was indeed threatened to lose rights over the franchise, through a phone call from Disney's CEO Bob Iger to Andrew Wilson. This was also mentioned in an article from VentureBeat. The way I see it, if all the pay2win gambling specifics had been signed on by both EA and Disney, then Disney couldn't get this kind of leverage. Disney's demands were to completely remove microtransactions or significantly revamp them, which is what EA did.

3 - Disney has a lot more to lose than EA on this. Disney is the one who paid $4B for Star Wars and has a decades-long plan for the franchise. Their main problem is the negative aura surrounding Star Wars, which is amplified 10x because of how close we are to the release of The Last Jedi. Also, Disney has taken a hard stance against gambling and this is terrible for the family-friendly image they want to keep.
EA on the other hand has a history of treating their franchise acquisitions as disposable, which is why they were (are?) still trying to push pay2win gambling on the game despite the backlash.
EA has sacrificed many franchises/studios to push global agendas, like Westwood (Command&Conquer 4) and Maxis (Simcity 2013) were sacrificed to push always-online. It seems they were fine with doing the same with Star Wars.

4 - EA knew there would be backlash (it was calculated) but laughed at everyone who warned to take the backlash more seriously.

5 - kravguy is from either DICE or EA (probably the later IMO). He states there are many inside the company who are against microtransactions in AAA but most importantly they're completely against the pay2win gambling. It hurt especially because it was done to a franchise that's so dear to sci-fi fans (who are probably like 90% of the people in the gaming industry?). There are people inside the company who are even rooting for the rights to be taken from EA.

6 - "Dice is meek, EA is scared, and Disney is angry."; "EA, DICE, and Disney are all culpable, though to different degrees and for different reasons."

7- "Right now, the more popular option (internally) is to create specific star card + cosmetic bundles which can be purchased with crystals, thus removing the "gambling" aspect of MTs."

8 - Everything that happened was the direct and indirect result of the community backlash - including the involvement of government entities. Every other post from this guy is about thanking the r/gaming and r/starwarsbattlefront communities for the hard push they made, by making post after post about the issue and making sure they kept being upvoted so the subject would stay in the first page of reddit.

9 - Nothing is set on stone. Pay2win gambling can still make a comeback if the subject dies off and sales are good enough. He advises the communities to keep pushing until they get what they want - which by this time I'd say is a statement from EA saying microtransactions will be for cosmetics only, in the future.

 

[iroboto]

Surprised that EA continues on this path.
If bottom line matter to them that much, Just remove it all together go with standard progression and make a fast track progression with subscribers to EA Access and be done with it.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Surprised that EA continues on this path.
If bottom line matter to them that much, Just remove it all together go with standard progression and make a fast track progression with subscribers to EA Access and be done with it.

What do you think their bottom line is?
Because the game was clearly designed to attract whales, not regular gamers or Star Wars fans.


EDIT: The game releases today and there's zero mention of it in the EU playstation blog. Looks like even Sony is putting some distance from it.
https://blog.eu.playstation.com/

 

[iroboto]

What do you think their bottom line is?
Because the game was clearly designed to attract whales, not regular gamers or Star Wars fans.


EDIT: The game releases today and there's zero mention of it in the EU playstation blog. Looks like even Sony is putting some distance from it.
https://blog.eu.playstation.com/

Not sure, at this point in time, I'd be trying to write it off as well. Ship the game without paid lootboxes, and change the progression ratios.
Ship it and be done. Eat the losses or whatever comes with that. Adjust the rest of your game lineup as required so you don't run into this issue again.

If money is that important, then start giving major advantage to their EA Access service remove randomization from the equation and provide subscribers better service.
No one is going to like a 2 tier service, but it's coming

 

[CSI PC]

I don't think that's a new thing. Back in the days, there was plenty of shovelware of the same game with repackaged assets (many Disney platforming tie-ins for example). There are plenty of games predating DLC that have recycled content to add longevity due to technical and cost limits. I'm not convinced it's an intrinsically worsening problem. Also, as mentioned, the need to move content from the main title to DLC could be economically driven. If pubs didn't do that, would they be able to sustain themselves? Some are happy to assert that it's not a financial requirement and these pubs would be plenty well off enough, pleasing the share holders too I guess, just selling $60 games. At the moment the arguments all seem very personal speculation. Like so many on B3D!

True but listening to those who have followed the industry for a long time they say the trend is much worse now, with the perception-marketing strategy to try and make it more "acceptable".
However it is fair to say the practice of such tactics have become much more aggressive in recent years, possibly brought over from what was seen with mobile games and free to play, along with the revenue clearly shown by using recurring cost services more in the gamers' face and perception, which opens up to a new way of encouraging user behaviour - meaning changing their perception and behaviour to spend much more money on an aspect that is cheaper to implement than a full and complete game content.

A crude example how they are trying to change the behaviour of the owner is CoD WW2 with the loot crate falling from the sky and other gamers able to see what you "win", emphasised that there is a "reward" system for watching someone elses loot drop.
A blatant and crude example of what will be refined for encouraging recurring revenue related behaviour from the gamer; so AAA rrp for the game, additional price for DLC-content, and with a mechanism that will make the studio a lot of money.
Should AAA games with its pricing including for DLC/delux editions/etc really be expected to implement/encourage this type of game owner behaviour?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

However it is fair to say the practice of such tactics have become much more aggressive in recent years, possibly brought over from what was seen with mobile games and free to play, along with the revenue clearly shown by using recurring cost services more in the gamers' face and perception, which opens up to a new way of encouraging user behaviour - meaning changing their perception and behaviour to spend much more money on an aspect that is cheaper to implement than a full and complete game content.

Definitely. The two real drivers here are mobile economies and Apple revenue. Everyone is seeing massive profits from recurring spends, so is moving to service and MT-based models. Office used to be an app you bought - now it's a service you subscribe to. This in endemic to the current market in every corner where these different pricing models can be applied.

To be clear, I am not in favour of exploitative MT's or gambling mechanics or a lot of the way things are going. What I am in favour of is understanding exactly what is and isn't necessary and balancing around that, rather than going with one or other polarised view. An out-right ban on MTs would probably be similar devastating for our hobby as watching it turn into a monstrous P2W-infected mess.

 

[Nisaaru]

Can somebody actually provide real examples how Microtransactions improved the players total experience?

Like getting something for your money you feel adequate or it lead to better production quality, faster timed game releases?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Borderlands DLC. By charging for additional content, the devs are able to invest more into it. If Borderlands was a fixed price only, it'd either have to cost more up front to pay for future content, or the content wouldn't get made. Warhawk also got some great paid content updates. I'm sure there are loads of games. Lots of folk have willing paid money on F2P Warframe too, so they must have gotten something of value from it.

My game, ionAXXIA. It'll be F2P with a minimal amount of content and you'll pay to unlock additional content at a fixed price. That way you only pay for what you play and there's no barrier to entry. At the moment it has a basic cover charge on Steam Early Access as I had to put in a price, but I think I'll switch to the same model on PC and give all Early Adopters a full pass. This, IMO, was the best option for content delivery - more episodic. The problem with most episodic content it seems is many players get bored and don't bother to finish it. Certain story based games are better of being delivered as a complete package.

 

[iroboto]

Can somebody actually provide real examples how Microtransactions improved the players total experience?

Like getting something for your money you feel adequate or it lead to better production quality, faster timed game releases?

Last generation we had maps that were locked to DLC, and split populations were the major result. The new mode keeps the populations together, but lootboxes take it place.
So the benefit to loot boxes are free content/maps/games types for everyone to enjoy.

 

[BRiT]

Can somebody actually provide real examples how Microtransactions improved the players total experience?

Like getting something for your money you feel adequate or it lead to better production quality, faster timed game releases?

Rockband Songs.

Just Dance Songs.

Valve's Hats.

DOA Costumes/Clothes.

@AlNets anything else to add?

 

[iroboto]

Rockband Songs.

Just Dance Songs.

Valve's Hats.

DOA Costumes/Clothes.

@AlNets anything else to add?

Rainbow Six Siege is the swan song of post release DLC.

Dota, LoL, Heck hearthstone is complete play to win.

 

[AlNom]

Pinball

 

[CSI PC]

Borderlands DLC. By charging for additional content, the devs are able to invest more into it. If Borderlands was a fixed price only, it'd either have to cost more up front to pay for future content, or the content wouldn't get made. Warhawk also got some great paid content updates. I'm sure there are loads of games. Lots of folk have willing paid money on F2P Warframe too, so they must have gotten something of value from it.

My game, ionAXXIA. It'll be F2P with a minimal amount of content and you'll pay to unlock additional content at a fixed price. That way you only pay for what you play and there's no barrier to entry. At the moment it has a basic cover charge on Steam Early Access as I had to put in a price, but I think I'll switch to the same model on PC and give all Early Adopters a full pass. This, IMO, was the best option for content delivery - more episodic. The problem with most episodic content it seems is many players get bored and don't bother to finish it. Certain story based games are better of being delivered as a complete package.

Those are great games generally and also to bring into this subject, both Borderlands 1 and 2 along with their DLC nearly all had great content that made the season pass mean something and true replay value throught the whole game/DLCs, but it would be a perfect candidate for modern recurring revenue under some studios/publishers due to the structure of the playing characters designs-loot mechanics-items available and their own mechanics with random parts.
Definitely were worth their price and very late epic game was still accessible, which possibly under a recurring revenue structure would require its use in said very late beyond normal game or those that see others with epic/legendary gear in Youtube videos/etc; that is an aspect which will sadly drive recurring revenue as studios are aware of the lets play/showing items/bosses/etc interest out there with twitch and youtube.

And good luck with your game, look forward to keeping an eye on it in Steam (like the video lol)

 

[CSI PC]

Last generation we had maps that were locked to DLC, and split populations were the major result. The new mode keeps the populations together, but lootboxes take it place.
So the benefit to loot boxes are free content/maps/games types for everyone to enjoy.

But this is also now being implemented into single player campaigns and games not just the Battlefront 2/Destiny 2/etc
Worth remembering that EA wanted more aggressive microtransactions/recurring revenue in Titanfall 2, which tinfoil hat me wonders if this is one of the reasons they did not get fully behind it unlike Battlefield 1 that launched 2 weeks earlier - has context as they ended up buying Respawn Entertainment and that IP.

 

[iroboto]

But this is also now being implemented into single player campaigns and games not just the Battlefront 2/Destiny 2/etc
Worth remembering that EA wanted more aggressive microtransactions/recurring revenue in Titanfall 2, which tinfoil hat me wonders if this is one of the reasons they did not get fully behind it unlike Battlefield 1 that launched 2 weeks earlier - has context as they ended up buying Respawn Entertainment and that IP.

Can you provide me some examples? I need to see clear axioms here.
Axiom 1) Real money markets and spend are only useful if players are playing your game
Axiom 2) Players are less likely to play your single player game once they are done playing the campaign
Axiom 3) add multiplayer to extend the life of game
Axiom 4) add more content for free to increase the time spent playing the game and ideally they will spend money purchasing with real money.

Evidence:
Rise of tomb Raider post launch support
Assassins Creed Origins post launch support
Shadow of War post launch support

Results: All single player games included new modes and content for players to chew through after launch. All games have some form of card system to spend on lootboxes/packs.

 

[Nisaaru]

Well, I should have said that I meant the micro transaction question in regard to AA/AAA titles and not F2P ones where it's obviously the business model.

Which game you paid full price delivered real valuable content for *microtransactions*. We could also look into who delivered real content for paid extra DLCs which is worth looking into too but not exactly the point.

In Destiny they claimed the micro transactions paid the life team delivering extra content. The only real quality content there were SLR(Sparrow Racing) and AoT where they polished "old" Raids to current level(which should have been done by default), added some challenge modes+little mechanics difference and refreshed the armour designs, weapons just got a little change nothing worth discussing from a cost perspective. IMHO the whole way Bungie handled their micro transactions I considered utterly stupid from a fair trade and very like also total revenue perspective.

AC Origin and RotR both have season passes/paid DLCs. RotR also has some micro transactions for some weirdo cards I didn't even figure out the point for. At least that's what I can recall when I finished it.

 

[BRiT]

Well, I should have said that I meant the micro transaction question in regard to AA/AAA titles and not F2P ones where it's obviously the business model.

Which game you paid full price for delivered real valuable content for *microtransactions*. We could also look into who delivered real content for paid extra DLCs which is worth looking into to but not exactly the point.

Same answer to your new different question...

Rockband Songs.
Just Dance Songs.
Valve's Hats.
DOA Costumes/Clothes.

 

[AlNom]

DOA is a bit of a weird one since it started out as a full-priced model + MTs and then shifted towards a broken down pay-for-what-you-want (story, music, all characters, etc).

Would be curious to see publishers attempt something similar with SP & MP (digital only, naturally), but that's a different discussion perhaps. Incentivize the full package with more virtual value. I'm surprised EA didn't just port over Mass Effect 3's MP on the 2013 generation.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Those are great games generally and also to bring into this subject, both Borderlands 1 and 2 along with their DLC nearly all had great content that made the season pass mean something and true replay value throught the whole game/DLCs, but it would be a perfect candidate for modern recurring revenue under some studios/publishers due to the structure of the playing characters designs-loot mechanics-items available and their own mechanics with random parts.

Definitely. Could easily have sold chest keys. It must be tempting for any dev/pub at this point. Laws against it would level the play-field and get everyone back to thinking about selling content and not easy money.

 

[Malo]

Wouldn't legal issues against loot boxes also apply against things like Magic and Pokemon card games? It's basically the same concept. I don't see anything coming from any of this other than making it easier to progress without purchasing and possibly nerfing some powers to lessen the difference.