Take-Two plans to only release games with 'recurrent consumer spending' hooks - Gamasutra

[123joanna321]

As Firaxis Games, the creator's of Civilization and the modern XCOM series, is owned by Take Two, I find the recent statement from Take Two chairman and CEO Strauss Zelnick to be troubling for the series' futures.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...es_with_recurrent_consumer_spending_hooks.php

"It may not always be an online model, it probably won't always be a virtual currency model, but there will be some ability to engage in an ongoing basis with our titles after release across the board. That's a sea change in our business." - Take-Two chief Strauss Zelnick, speaking to investors on a conference call today.

In a conference call with investors today, Take-Two Interactive chairman and CEO Strauss Zelnick made it clear that, at least for Take-Two, the game industry is now all about "recurrent consumer spending" rather than game sales.(...)

However, it still gives other devs in the industry a bit more insight into where Take-Two plans to take its business in the future: "recurrent consumer spending opportunities" (aka microtransactions).

"We've said that we aim to have recurrent consumer spending opportunities for every title that we put out at this company. It may not always be an online model, it probably won't always be a virtual currency model, but there will be some ability to engage in an ongoing basis with our titles after release across the board," Zelnick continued.

So far, Civilization 6's DLC model has been a pretty standard season pass, even extending the amount of civs given in said pass. But what about Civilization 7 or even a new expansion? Do you think we'll have to worry about microtransactions and virtual currencies in future titles from Firaxis? What would that even look like? I could easy see charging players to bring back from the dead soldiers in XCOM or certain technologies hidden behind a pay wall. But I might be overly paranoid and Take Two just lets Firaxis do it's thing.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

DLCs are a form of recurrent spending, as are expansions, so I think Civ already leads this trend.

If anything it might lead to back to more fluffy DLCs like map packs or ethnic unit skins and stuff like that. And if that's the case, they might shut down modding, since modders can and do make trinket-y fluff like that for free.

 

[Zaarin]

Thanks, EA and Ubisoft. Your obsession with microtransactions is now ruining the entire industry--except Bethesda, which is too busy repackaging the same mediocre game six times over and exploiting fan creations to get into the microtransaction market. This is why I'm overwhelmingly an indie gamer...

 

[123joanna321]

DLCs are a form of recurrent spending, as are expansions, so I think Civ already leads this trend.

If anything it might lead to back to more fluffy DLCs like map packs or ethnic unit skins and stuff like that. And if that's the case, they might shut down modding, since modders can and do make trinket-y fluff like that for free.

I thought that too, but I'm worried about even more insidious, charge per campaign/session stuff like you seen in FPS.

Thanks, EA and Ubisoft. Your obsession with microtransactions is now ruining the entire industry--except Bethesda, which is too busy repackaging the same mediocre game six times over and exploiting fan creations to get into the microtransaction market. This is why I'm overwhelmingly an indie gamer...

If indie studios can make titles like the recent Cuphead, who even really needs the AAA industry to be honest.

 

[Zaarin]

If indie studios can make titles like the recent Cuphead, who even really needs the AAA industry to be honest.

There are some truly appallingly bad indie games out there, but the best indie games are always better than AAA games in my experience. Indie studios can afford to take risks that AAA studios can't, so AAA titles become sequel fests and banal play-it-safe middle-of-the-road fare. Or they just pretend to be edgy by substituting over-the-top sexuality for actual story or character development. *glares at Mass Effect: Andromeda*

 

[UWHabs]

Well, why charge people 60$ once when you can charge them 10$ a month? Sadly seems to be the way more and more games are headed.

 

[Rosty K]

Well, why charge people 60$ once when you can charge them 10$ a month? Sadly seems to be the way more and more games are headed.

On the other hand, if they charged $10 a month for something in the current state of Civ 6 (well, let's be fair and say the state of Civ 6 at release), they'd probably have made less money compared to the current model, as people would just stop paying 'until everything gets fixed'.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

On the other hand, if they charged $10 a month for something in the current state of Civ 6 (well, let's be fair and say the state of Civ 6 at release), they'd probably have made less money compared to the current model, as people would just stop paying 'until everything gets fixed'.

True. If there's one benefit to the subscription model, it's that it provides both the funds and the motivation to quickly fix bugs, and to a lesser extent, imbalances.

 

[Leyrann]

On the other hand, if they charged $10 a month for something in the current state of Civ 6 (well, let's be fair and say the state of Civ 6 at release), they'd probably have made less money compared to the current model, as people would just stop paying 'until everything gets fixed'.

And still, I would buy the $60 game, while I would never go for the $10 per month game, even if I only were to play it for a month or two. For me, the number 1 requirement for a good game is that you don't finish it and then move on to another game. Rather, a good game stays fun forever. That is in direct conflict with paying per month.

 

[Katakanja]

I thought that too, but I'm worried about even more insidious, charge per campaign/session stuff like you seen in FPS.

Nah, lootboxes are the money machines of choice at the moment, so if anything I'd be worried about the fact that it probably wouldn't be particularly difficult to insert some kind of level-based progression system into Civ without changing the basic fundamentals of the game.

You could start the game with, say, only 6 of the 20 base games civs unlocked for play, and then require the player to unlock the others by leveling up by playing normal games. The rest of the civs would be unlocked for use by the player by collecting them from lootboxes awarded after each level up. Alternate leaders and minor cosmetic changes like special building or unit models, etc, can be fitted into such a system easily too.

They can then charge for buying extra boxes ontop of what you gain from leveling up to accelerate the process, whilst pointing out that everything in the game can still be earned through normal playtime, albeit at a slower rate.

 

[bbbt]

If it means extend Civs DLC tail and bring out more DLC civs (and expansions?) for longer, I'd be down for it.

But yeah, it reads like a CEO looking at Civ 5's steam charts numbers and saying "There are 40,000 people still playing Civ 5 years after they paid us for it, how can we keep making money of them?"

 

[123joanna321]

But yeah, it reads like a CEO looking at Civ 5's steam charts numbers and saying "There are 40,000 people still playing Civ 5 years after they paid us for it, how can we keep making money of them?"

Its more like they looked at what GTAV is doing, then trying to do that for ALL their games

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...count_for_nearly_half_of_TakeTwos_revenue.php

 

[Blue Odin]

I am pretty sure he was referring to Rockstar more than Firaxis and that they will push for a Red Dawn Redemption Online after the RRD2 is released.

 

[UWHabs]

And still, I would buy the $60 game, while I would never go for the $10 per month game, even if I only were to play it for a month or two. For me, the number 1 requirement for a good game is that you don't finish it and then move on to another game. Rather, a good game stays fun forever. That is in direct conflict with paying per month.

I'm very much the same way, although there are probably some games I could live with paying per month for. Even if I hardly ever do it, if tonight I just decided that I wanted to go play cities:skylines or civ 4 or Alpha Centauri, I can go back and find them on my computer and play them.

The exception would be if someone came out with a good streaming service for games, like a Netflix. With a good repertoire of games, that might be enough to be worth a monthly subscription as then it would be nice to open up a new game sometimes and give it a shot, where I'm not going to spend 50 bucks to "try out" a game and decide whether I actually like it.

 

[blackbutterfly]

DLCs are a form of recurrent spending, as are expansions, so I think Civ already leads this trend.

But does it mean things like DLC? As you say modders can do maps, civs/leaders and scenarios.

I think it means more like what Firaxis planned with CivWorld. I can't remember exactly how but there was a credits system (of which I still have some balance). It probably relates to games that are more multiplayer. Or MMOs, etc. where it is meaningful to charge a subs. for the service.

 

[Gorbles]

Nowhere in the quote in the OP marks a change from delivering multiple DLC pieces and expansions to a base product years after its release. Which is exactly what Civilisation does, has done, and is currently continuing to do.

To scaremonger about a theoretical Civilisation 7, not only does Civ VII actually have to be somewhere near the public eye in terms of some kind of production, but enough information about it and / or its post-release cycle needs to be public information to actually talk about it. Otherwise it's just the generic "take something a businessperson said and scare people into thinking it could apply to a popular and established franchise".

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

But does it mean things like DLC? As you say modders can do maps, civs/leaders and scenarios.

I think it means more like what Firaxis planned with CivWorld. I can't remember exactly how but there was a credits system (of which I still have some balance). It probably relates to games that are more multiplayer. Or MMOs, etc. where it is meaningful to charge a subs. for the service.

Firaxis would really have to step up Civ's multiplayer game if they wanted to do a subscription-based version, because no one is going to pay $10/month for a single-player experience. I believe they are trying to do an e-sport thing with Civ, but I haven't followed it and I don't know how successful it has been.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Even if I hardly ever do it, if tonight I just decided that I wanted to go play cities:skylines or civ 4 or Alpha Centauri, I can go back and find them on my computer and play them.

I think that's exactly the point.

RN the biggest competition for Civ VI (and thus sales of Civ VI) is...Civ V! (and to a lesser extent Civ IV)

 

[Rosty K]

And still, I would buy the $60 game, while I would never go for the $10 per month game, even if I only were to play it for a month or two. For me, the number 1 requirement for a good game is that you don't finish it and then move on to another game. Rather, a good game stays fun forever. That is in direct conflict with paying per month.

That's right, and exactly the reason I've only played 4 games (different iterations of them) in the last 15 or so years. Those are Heroes of Might and Magic (but that really went downhill since 3 or 5), Football Manager (but this went into too much irrelevant detail after 2012 or so), EU (but these guys completely change everything too often) and Civilization (no 'but' yet, but getting close ) to be exact.

 

[123joanna321]

Nowhere in the quote in the OP marks a change from delivering multiple DLC pieces and expansions to a base product years after its release. Which is exactly what Civilisation does, has done, and is currently continuing to do.

To scaremonger about a theoretical Civilisation 7, not only does Civ VII actually have to be somewhere near the public eye in terms of some kind of production, but enough information about it and / or its post-release cycle needs to be public information to actually talk about it. Otherwise it's just the generic "take something a businessperson said and scare people into thinking it could apply to a popular and established franchise".

I brought it up because, like I said, Take Two owns Friaxis. The CEO wants all new game under his company (which would include Friaxis) to have some kind of microtransaction in all games from his company (which again would include Friaxis) so I am bring this article up to discuss what that would mean for Civilization. The theoretical Civ7 I brought up is just a way to frame that declaration into a series people might not think about when it comes to microtransactions, not to "scaremonger".