Microtransactions: the Future of Games? (LootBoxes and Gambling)
Jim gives a rather touching musical tribute microtransactions/paywalls/dlc ect
listen to jim for he is wise in the ways of men
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8514-Fun-Pay-Wall
listen to jim for he is wise in the ways of men
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8514-Fun-Pay-Wall
I doubt it, its the biggest game ATM so lets compare it to the biggest console game GTAV, a billion in the first day
thus basically theyre gonna have to do that 800k a day for 3 years to match it, and theres prolly 5x the number of ppl playing it
Sure if they can get a person to pay $50 for a game and then charge the whales $ on top of it they would love this
Zynga spent 100s of millions chasing past success.
GTA could just as easily face heavily reduced sales and a very fast attrition rate of it's double dip payments ... for the top dogs microtransactions are a dangerous gamble, from a publisher point of view they probably want all the games to have it so we as gamers don't have a choice but it will be very hard to enforce that (tragedy of the commons, everyone wants that top spot ... there are still billions to be made there, and lack of microtransactions are a competitive advantage).
GTA could just as easily face heavily reduced sales and a very fast attrition rate of it's double dip payments ... for the top dogs microtransactions are a dangerous gamble, from a publisher point of view they probably want all the games to have it so we as gamers don't have a choice but it will be very hard to enforce that (tragedy of the commons, everyone wants that top spot ... there are still billions to be made there, and lack of microtransactions are a competitive advantage).
scooby_dooby
Legend
I just don't know why they feel the need to graft the business model, that works in an entirely different context, onto their existing one.
The ideal type of DLC for a $60 game is obvious, when you are able to sell your 8-12hrs of content for $60 a pop, you simply make more content. Just give them more of what they clearly want. Map Packs, Level Packs, Expansion Packs etc
You don't start chipping away at the value proposition of your $60 item, making the user wonder why they hell they are paying that much in the first place...
The ideal type of DLC for a $60 game is obvious, when you are able to sell your 8-12hrs of content for $60 a pop, you simply make more content. Just give them more of what they clearly want. Map Packs, Level Packs, Expansion Packs etc
You don't start chipping away at the value proposition of your $60 item, making the user wonder why they hell they are paying that much in the first place...
Im sure ROR its much higher (though I think you'ld be shocked how much cndy crushers cost, look at the number of ppl that worked on it)
but at the end of the day, pure profit is all the matters and its GTA all the way, GTA6 will also make heaps of cash doing basically the same game, can the same be said for candycrushers 2, anger birds X, etc
Making that content costs money. In game purchases a la mobile games are free. That why devs/publishers want to emulate it - free money!
For what it's worth, very little DLC makes money, some games do very well with it, but it isn't the norm. The norm is that most of that content costs more to make than it recoups.
What publishers like about F2P is it's basically software as a service, personally if that's the way were going I'd prefer just to pay the monthly subscription, but people don't seem amenable to that.
What publishers like about F2P is it's basically software as a service, personally if that's the way were going I'd prefer just to pay the monthly subscription, but people don't seem amenable to that.
Considering ERP has seen numbers for PSN+ subscriptions on PS3, I'm going to take a guess that he's also seen numbers for DLC sales and has an idea on the production costs of DLC too.
ERP is (or was) a lazy game developer.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I guess I phrased that wrong! I know why they do it, I just don't know why they thought it was acceptable, or that it would work well. At least to me, it feels way off.
GT6 is doing exactly the same thing as Forza 5. The most expensive car is £119.95 at its cheapest. We'll have two excellent test-beds to evaluate how core gamers respond to microtransactions. Actially, microtransactions is the wrong word. £40 on content - there's nothing micro about that! It's not 50 cent and one dollar purchases here and there, but major pricing. And far less value to typical DLC expansions. I'd expect £5-10 for new tracks and cars, whereas 'microtransactions' as currently used is looking more at £5-10+ for only a car or two.
No Shifty, GT6 isn't doing remotely the same thing as Forza. Nothing about GT has changed to 'accomodate' spending money on microtransactions. You can't even buy anything from within the game, but have to go to the store, and then you can purchase credits. You progress the same way, win cars the same way, and generally get money and cars faster rather than slower versus previous GTs, while the number of available tracks and cars has only gone up. It's hardly a step up, if you ask me, versus getting a 10.000.000 credit bonus in GT4 when you bought GT4 Prologue, etc.
Forza has reduced the number of cars (less than half of the previous game, 1/6th of GT), tracks (only double the total of new tracks in GT6), continually suggests cars in-game that have to be bought, removed winning prize cars, forces you to pay for even testing a car, has no arcade mode in which you can just play with a large selection of all sorts of cars, and so on and so forth.
There is some leeway for Forza being a launch game, but I don't think saying GT6 does the same thing as Forza 5 even remotely covers reality, and I'm getting quite annoyed by how many people just assume this (witnessing Eurogamer, GAF, etc.)
The principal is the same if in varying degrees of implementation. I don't know the state of F5's 'game crippling' as I'm not following the game, but what was raised in this thread, which is my only reference point, suggested F5 hadn't been changed by design and was just allowing a shortcut to cars, just like GT6 is. If I'm wrong in that understanding, it's because I'm naive. I'll leave others to argue about whether that's the case or not.
The important thing is two racing sims have adopted a model whereby you can choose to spend (significant amounts of) money to access cars that are also available in game. The only difference AFAICS is the balance with how much 'work' you need to do to unlock the in-game cars, and whether the design of the game has been adjusted to encourage content purchasing or not.
The important thing is two racing sims have adopted a model whereby you can choose to spend (significant amounts of) money to access cars that are also available in game. The only difference AFAICS is the balance with how much 'work' you need to do to unlock the in-game cars, and whether the design of the game has been adjusted to encourage content purchasing or not.
Yes, so to summarise:
GT6 is the same as GT5, except you can decide to buy 'credit packs' very similar to what you can do in a tonne of other games these days, which allow you to get to cars faster than just buy playing the game. I do not see and have never seen an issue with this, as long as the design of the game hasn't been changed.
This should be the fundamental part of any microtransaction discussion.
1. What is the game worth if you just pretend they are not available?
2. How distracting are changes to the UI to accomodate/promote microtransactions?
The discussion is very similar to Diablo 3, where the game economy had been clearly changed to make the market place more important, and which recent changes to the game (partly also because the console audience still plays offline to a large extent) are clear witnesses of. Forza 5 has made some pretty significant changes to make micro-transactions a very in-your-face affair as well.
But Gran Turismo 5 on the other hand, for better or worse, is basically the same as ever, except you have a very expensive 'cheat' which is similar to cheats done previously where garages were edited, people gave each other save games, or people used action replay to unlock everything rather than by playing the game. Now you can pay for that directly to PD as well. But even that is done outside of the game, by buying a credit pack on PSN or in the store.
GT6 is the same as GT5, except you can decide to buy 'credit packs' very similar to what you can do in a tonne of other games these days, which allow you to get to cars faster than just buy playing the game. I do not see and have never seen an issue with this, as long as the design of the game hasn't been changed.
This should be the fundamental part of any microtransaction discussion.
1. What is the game worth if you just pretend they are not available?
2. How distracting are changes to the UI to accomodate/promote microtransactions?
The discussion is very similar to Diablo 3, where the game economy had been clearly changed to make the market place more important, and which recent changes to the game (partly also because the console audience still plays offline to a large extent) are clear witnesses of. Forza 5 has made some pretty significant changes to make micro-transactions a very in-your-face affair as well.
But Gran Turismo 5 on the other hand, for better or worse, is basically the same as ever, except you have a very expensive 'cheat' which is similar to cheats done previously where garages were edited, people gave each other save games, or people used action replay to unlock everything rather than by playing the game. Now you can pay for that directly to PD as well. But even that is done outside of the game, by buying a credit pack on PSN or in the store.
Except it isn't. As other have already stated. Having credits for sale in the PSN store, while not changing the game itself. Does it remind you in all the loading screens? Did it change the in game economy to make things more expensive than the game before it? Both of these are no as I understand it. GT6 is doing what almost all games are doing these days, offering a time saving mechanism outside of the game. Every racing game I have played in the five years has had this, even AC4 has it now. But if you ignore it, the game is unchanged. This is how it should be done, as a person with little time I enjoy the occasional unlock or cash boost.