Microtransactions, games as business and a discussion of profits and monetization

Carbonised

Reverb wrote: »

I fail to see the problem here. It's not as if game studios are non-profit organizations, putting out content solely for the benefit of the community. They are for-profit corporations, operating in a capitalist society. Of course they are trying to make their money back twice, thrice, and more. As consumers, we can choose to participate, or we can spend with more discretion.

I don't see this same level of ire directed at stores for stocking thousands of little items at the checkout lines, or movie theatre concessions, or car dealership add-ons. No one is saying that it's not ok for Whirlpool, PepsiCo, or Duracell to make as much money off of us as possible. Why would anyone expect game studios to operate differently? Do people imagine there should be revenue cap, after which free stuff should be given, or that optional purchases should stop being released?

It's corporate capitalism when it's worst vs indie mentality.

Btw, I don't know where you live, but I live in the EU, where we have lots of regulations both nationally and internationally through the European Union, exactly in order to place limits on the shady tactics that businesses can use in order to take advantage of their potential customers. And as far as I am aware, regulations are also being used in the States.

It's not really new, pharmaceutical products are regulated through law, food and drugs are regulated through law, alcohol, tobacco, gambling is regulated. Commercials are regulated as well, so they can't play on promises they cannot deliver, for instance.
There have also been some very large (billion dollar class) fines delivered by the EU to companies such as Google and Facebook, for trying to favor their own advertisers and revenue before objective information and search results.

Regulating businesses is nothing new, and then there's the whole indie scene, where the goal isnt to make monye, but where the money is only the requirement to deliver the product. Indie developers make video games too. Obsidian released several games through Kickstarter.

Aisle9

Narvuntien wrote: »

Games are extremely expensive to make and players expect them to be low cost/free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWGQCzAtl8

Funny how most of the explanation can be summed by: "We saw first hand, but we're under NDA, so... just trust us, ok?".

It'sAGundam, Jim Sterling and other made direct response to that video, but if you want to get a good idea at why it's filled with inaccuracies, look at successful games that don't rely on day1 DLC, microtransaction, and other monetization strategies.

I mean, when Boogie2988 has something to say about, you should really worry about it.

Just saying.

DieAlteHexe

lordrichter wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

klowdy1 wrote: »

Can we stop bringing up money in a video game forum? No one makes anyone pay money, outside of actually buying the game, and that is your choice, too. Let the horse be.

Yeah, the "horse" is pretty much a smear of goo by now.

The gaming world has changed, the genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. Despite objections, it will carry on in some form or another.

It certainly will be that way if players are willing to share their pocket with the studio's hand. I slap that hand as much as possible, but it is always trying to wiggle in there.


And, no, this game does not use microtransactions.

Too true. And I don't mind in the least. It's a choice. Well, let me qualify that; I don't mind so long as the "shop" doesn't go P2W. That would see me never spend another minute nor penny on that game.

I appreciate they are out to make money, that's the whole point of the exercise. They give away a large portion of the game so I don't have an issue with, when I see something I like, buying it to support progress. If progress halts, then I'd have another opinion .

idk

1. I like how you attempt to discredit comments like Zos is a company that needs to make profits as not really being a worthy response. Really and truly inaccurate and the video you posted does not dismiss that by any means. In fact, it states the opposite.
2. Your friend boogie even states at the beginning that you, and all of us, should have paid more for the game to start off with. This argument would also support requiring a subscription, which most newer MMOs no longer require.

So in the end, due to lower thresholds of players willing to pay a subscription games have gone a different direction and that is the microtransations which are purely voluntary.

Would I prefer a subscription being required? Yes, because it places the focus on content vs other aspects, but it is clear that is no longer as successful outside of older MMORPG gaming franchises like WoW and FF (which has fewer players that ESO).

So in the end, with the absence the cash wall of subscriptions, games have found a different way to monetize the game. Like it or not, it is here to stay. Your choice to pay the extra or not.

ZOS_KatP

Hi all,

While we understand this topic is important to discuss, the ESO forums are not the place to have this conversation. While the intention may have been focused on ESO, the discussion has veered off and become more about the industry as a whole, and violates our policy on inappropriate content, meaning this discussion is not suitable for an official game forum such as ours. For this reason, we've decided to close this thread.

Thanks for understanding.