This guy makes a great case why microtransactions WERENT necessary

I hope this is in the right forum, if not, if any mod wants to move it, feel free.



Basically publishers are making less games with bigger budgets and making more profits now with microstansactions. They are also spending less on distribution. He argues that there is no reason why publishers couldnt make lower budget games with no microtransactions.

Something to think about.

I don't understand. How are you supposed to make money off of dumb people if you don't do microtransactions?

Necessary? No, they aren't necessary. That's got the whole cause/effect thing messed up.

What's going on is that they want to make as much money as they can. That's the whole point of making a company to do these things, you know. If microtransactions are making money then they stay. If not, they go the same way that in-game advertising went.

That said, though, the more money they make the more they can put back into the game, later versions of the game, and even completely new games. Naturally not all of it will be but a good hunk of it will. Thus, the argument is somewhat true. If it wasn't for loot boxes, DLCs, and whatever else is getting called a microtransaction these days then the games wouldn't be as well funded as they are now. No idea whether that's trivially more or massively more, but more.

Interesting graph on the number of releases, though. Now that I think about it, EA games have gotten pretty rare for me. Dragon Age: Inquisition was probably the last and that was a couple of years ago. The last real Ubi game I played was Far Cry 3 (South Park: SoT doesn't count, IMHO). And Activision?? Pththth. But what about other companies? Square seems to be showing up more and more now with Tomb Raider, NieR, Final Fantasy (new, old, and remakes), Just Cause, and so on. Paradox is all over the place, too.

Originally Posted by Damian
Something to think about.

There is nothing to think about in my case.

This goes to any developer/publisher.
Set a price, offer me a nobullshit singleplayeronly game, I'll buy it no questions asked.
Keep microtransactions and other scam exclusive in pay2win and pay2cheat phonegames/MMOs, that's the audience you want.
If you can't develop a proper videogame without bundling scamware into it, then you're not a proper developer/publisher but a scammer. Sadly, no government dared to start jailing for it, here's hope someone will.

And to "pro" critics I can only say stop crowning scams as GOTY already.

Never read anything about vid products being too expensive to make. Read stuff about budget increasing relatively to the past etc

If an activity has a declining RoI, money goes elsewhere. Being profitable is not enough, activities must be profitable enough to be perceived as an investment opportunity etc

Apparently, kind of stuff that eluded the video maker.

Originally Posted by joxer
There is nothing to think about in my case.

This goes to any developer/publisher.
Set a price, offer me a nobullshit singleplayeronly game, I'll buy it no questions asked.
Keep microtransactions and other scam exclusive in pay2win and pay2cheat phonegames/MMOs, that's the audience you want.
If you can't develop a proper videogame without bundling scamware into it, then you're not a proper developer/publisher but a scammer. Sadly, no government dared to start jailing for it, here's hope someone will.

And to "pro" critics I can only say stop crowning scams as GOTY already.

Amen to that.

Behind this failure in analysis, infinite growth.
Publishers releasing less and less products follows products requiring more and more resources.
The more resources a product developpment demands, the less are expected to be released as they absorb more and more resources.

Unless, of course, infinite growth is implied, in which case, you can developp as many and as large projects as you want, there is no limit.

Originally Posted by joxer
If you can't develop a proper videogame without bundling scamware into it, then you're not a proper developer/publisher but a scammer. Sadly, no government dared to start jailing for it, here's hope someone will.

And to "pro" critics I can only say stop crowning scams as GOTY already.

Crowdfunding supporters contend that when receiving something, it cant be a scam. That is why, they say, crowdfunded products can not be a scam.

Same applies for any other products.

Idiot. Actually what you would end up with is low budget games that are nothing but micro-transactions. The problem with corporate everywhere is that the objective is not about making a reasonable profit but milking every penny you can from the consumer. Since they have decided they make more with microtransactions then without they will increase the amount of micro-transactions until they think they reach some limit - and if they totally fuck it up - they will slap themselves a big bonus and fire the developers for failing to attract people to micro-transactions.
-
Just look at other companies - for example lets take apple - look at how much profit they are making each year. This is because they have a desired product and a defacto monopoly (closed echo-system) - so they trap the consumer. Want your apps and music library - you gotta buy their product - so they jack it up a couple of extra $$ because they know you will be forced to stick with them and the cycle continues. If it was a free market then more people would switch to less expensive alternative (they use lawyers to limit their apps to their phones else you would see emulators for other phones).
LIke wise for itunes. itunes is a trivial piece of software but they restrict it to their devices (and windows computers) use laywers to block outside attempts to reverse eng.
-
anyway that's the story about micro-transactions. It has nothing to do with sustanibility and you can bet they don't use the cash to improve games - rather htey use the cash to find ways to lock you into increased micro-transactions in the future. Vote with your wallet - avoid.

Originally Posted by you
Idiot. Actually what you would end up with is low budget games that are nothing but micro-transactions.

At the moment, they are heavy budget products.

The problem with corporate everywhere is that the objective is not about making a reasonable profit but milking every penny you can from the consumer. Since they have decided they make more with microtransactions then without they will increase the amount of micro-transactions until they think they reach some limit - and if they totally fuck it up -

Reads as if they have an idea of what a reasonable profit is.

Just look at other companies - for example lets take apple - look at how much profit they are making each year. This is because they have a desired product and a defacto monopoly (closed echo-system) - so they trap the consumer.

Like vid products that have a de facto monopoly on any extension they churn out.

anyway that's the story about micro-transactions. It has nothing to do with sustanibility and you can bet they don't use the cash to improve games - rather htey use the cash to find ways to lock you into increased micro-transactions in the future. Vote with your wallet - avoid.

No. They are not afforded a regressive pattern as the crowdfunded scene is.
Corporations must add, they must improve their products, they must innovate or projects are wrapped up.

The crowdfunded products can withdraw, they can be poorer than or a copy of older products. They get praised.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
The crowdfunded products can withdraw, they can be poorer than or a copy of older products. They get praised.

Oh yeah, everyone is praising Earthlock, 24/7.

In your dreams and your streams.

As telling that no corporate product is praised.

Necessary?

Of course not.

They represent a very efficient way of making money - because you don't actually have to do any work to implement them.

That's essentially free money to an investor. The challenge isn't earning more for less - it's finding the right setting on your greed dial - where profit is maximised but the consumer isn't sufficiently turned off.

All we can hope for is some investor overdoing it - which will inevitably happen one day. By overdoing it, I mean REALLY overdoing it.

It's at that point the mainstream will start actually thinking about what they're doing - and perhaps vote with their wallets.

But it's just as inevitable that the business will just find another way to maximise profit and minimise effort. It's integral to the formula of combining capitalism with human nature.

The only viable alternative, right now, would be crowd funding.