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

[Leyrann]

I would be okay if they had silly stuff like paying money to get your unit healed to full health. It's cheating in a way, but some people would pay for that. I never would. But I'd be okay with them making revenue off of stupid people. Isn't this how most mobile games are? I don't play mobile games, so I can't say for sure. I think a lot of games are moving to a system where you pay money to be overpowered. For me, it's easy to resist that kind of temptation.

The problem is that, typically, these games also require you to do a lot of waiting if you're not willing to pay. Most mobile games, for example, have real-time building durations of stuff, like "wait 6 hours until this building is finished or pay $.99" (except through an ingame currency bought with real money). Typically, a free to play game where you can speed stuff up with money isn't fun to play if you're not paying.

 

[Ryika]

Civ isn't a game that works with microtransactions. They'd have to change the theoretical civ7 to the point that no one would buy the base game, thus rendering the point moot

I don't think that's true. You'd only need to add some progression to the Leader Traits (alternative bonuses to choose from for example, to add a unique spin to the leader), some alternative Costumes for the leaders, maybe some alternative models for units or buildings/districts, skins for the map and there you go, you already have a system out of which you can do a lootbox system that you could even market as a great new feature, with an option to "skip" the progression by paying for it with real money, because you're not actually removing features that were there before, but instead adding more stuff to the game.

Not that I think Firaxis would do such a thing - I would say they have a pretty good track-record of staying away from such practices and some bonus-goodwill thanks to for example their support for Long War 2 - but to say that it could not be implemented in a way that it's not a reason not to purchase the game for most players, seems like an overstatement.

 

[gimley_gunner]

Oh how we luaghed at the horse armour dlc all those years ago and now look at how the cancer has grown. In the games industies eyes it's all about the 'money left on the table'. I've been pondering how would they work it into a strategy game especially for the single player experience. Make a future Civ game 'grindy' and enable the buying of gold with real life money?

 

[blackbutterfly]

After Civ VI if Firaxis ever releases a Civ VII as a SP game online only with subs. nobody will buy it. People will just play Civ VI and V

 

[God of Kings]

After Civ VI if Firaxis ever releases a Civ VII as a SP game online only with subs. nobody will buy it. People will just play Civ VI and V

Don't forget Civ IV, the last civ game that is 100% legally playable offline for Windows without the need to install any third-party software.

The subscription model may work for 2K Sports though, because sports games don't change much, aside from graphics updates and roster changes.

 

[BenZL43]

Back then, I was pondering whether it's actually possible for Civilization to follow Windows 10-like subscription model. Lately a lot of companies are changing their business model, be it a freemium app with monthly subscription (e.g. Office 365) or paid app with free updates (e.g. Windows 10).

In the example of Civilization, at least I can think of one advantange: constantly continuous update. History shows that Civilization series were followed by 2 expansion packs and then there's this period of hiatus until the next-in-number Civilization come out. With this kind of business model, we might get to see more and more expansion pack even many years after the game traditionally supported. However, is the current Civilization's game engine optimal enough?

Moreover in this case, I think probably the developer will (or should) be giving out expansion packs and patches for free because difficulty keeping too many different version of game.

Unfortunately, monthly subscription will most likely dissuade regular customer from subscribing at all, lest they unable to (or not willing to) pay for the next months. This path could also destroy modding community. Their paid Thai civilization DLC won't compete well with Sukritact's Thai, for example.1 Seeing this reality, then I wish they don't even try turning excellent mod into paid modding, if they learn from the catastrophic result in Skyrim's modding community.

All in all, I prefer status quo but with extended support. Add more expansion packs, add more DLC between expansion packs and after "traditional timespan of support" ends. New wonder, new city state, etc are always welcomed by players that crave for graphic candies and well-tolerated by those who don't.

1I choose this civilization as example because the quality is already in par with Firaxis-level.

 

[God of Kings]

Not just that, but @sukritact 's Thai civ even exceeds Firaxis standards!

If fan creations become paid, then it may lead to legal issues, since some fan creations are derived from copyrighted works.

 

[BenZL43]

Not just that, but @sukritact 's Thai civ even exceeds Firaxis standards!

If fan creations become paid, then it may lead to legal issues, since some fan creations are derived from copyrighted works.

Right. Skyrim once went this path to create a regrettable fiasco.

 

[Zaarin]

Right. Skyrim once went this path to create a regrettable fiasco.

And is doing it again to no warmer reception.

 

[BenZL43]

And is doing it again to no warmer reception.

 

[God of Kings]

amiibo are a new form of paid mods.

From CivFanatics's sister site Zelda Universe: https://zeldauniverse.net/2017/06/1...the-nintendo-switch-with-amiibo-at-your-side/

I really hope that Take-Two doesn't adopt amiibo-like figurines.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Not just that, but @sukritact 's Thai civ even exceeds Firaxis standards!
If fan creations become paid, then it may lead to legal issues, since some fan creations are derived from copyrighted works.

Paid mods for Civ is a very bad idea. Tricky too.

There may be other legal issues (IP) particularly when modding civs of indigenous peoples. American and Australian in particular have treaties/laws that protect their cultural heritage. In principle it extends to all indigenous peoples but is only lawfully recognised for some.

The likeness of some leaders are protected. Gandhi is one (cos he's quite modern). Apple AFAIK requested permission from the Indian govt. for use of his image in their Think Different campaign. IDK if 2K+Firaxis did but India is probably not bothered.

 

[Hammurabbit]

I think the platform approach that many modern games are taking is pretty exciting. Build a foundation and then extend it and add content onto it for a number of years. That enables a new level of depth and complexity that is impossible to achieve with traditional one-off games. No sane company would invest as heavily upfront in a game, without real feedback from players, to match the amount of content and mechanics as e.g. EU4 has now. It also forces the gaming studios to think more about extensibility when they are architecting the game, and probably to keep a tighter relationship with the players.

Lootboxes and similar mechanics though, is despicable to me. That's taking advantage of people in a similar way as gambling.

 

[Victoria]

Loot boxes and similar do make it pay to win. Companies tread a fine line with legislation on such games but there is always money to be made on the razors edge.
I think large companies with popular titles are a bit more cautious and clever with their approaches. skins are a good examp,e, you can play looking like a tramp or play looking like a god for a bit more but regardless there is no game advantage (well, some skins can be abused with mp games).
I can play civ just as well without DLC's and I recognise they will make a better game if people invest, it's just a question about how much you are willing to pay. In truth I can afford DLC's but only buy them because I like to know what others are talking about. I have never played a DLC more than a couple of times and there is no need to. It's just another type of skin to make us feel more godlike. You have to admit DLC's are OP on purpose.
90% of my games are with Victoria, about 8% are Gorgo or catherine. I have no need to extend beyond that

 

[sherbz]

I have actually written to my MP (member of parliament) on this very issue. The gambling industry is regulated to the hilt on anything that resembles "gambling". Micro transactions, and in particular loot boxes, are merely that. This appallingly bad patent filed by activision sums up the warped and perverse logic that is employed by these people:



Now just digest that for a minute.

Basically, they may (they have not done this yet, they have merely patented the idea) make a game where there are micro transactions. And in that game in multiplayer, they will purposefully match you against another player who has a powerup that you do not. In that game, you will likely lose to said powerup. Then they will offer you that powerup for a price in a micro transaction. Then they will put you in a game where you can use that powerup to make yourself feel, ya'know, like a bad ass.

This is now a highly sophisticated and perverse form of marketing. And what makes it so bad is that games and gaming is enjoyed by a huge number of people now. Including kids. And the same kind of receptors in your brain that are stimulated when you play a slot machine are exactly the same ones that are stimulated here in this micro transaction BS.

I think this is a poison for the industry. Because micro transactions are market distorting. It only takes a small number of people to buy this sort of crap for the market practice to be legitimised. And meanwhile the games will get progressively more grindy and restrictive with content locked off behind a pay wall. Which will alienate gamers like me who will not, on principle, buy micro transactions in a triple A gaming title. In fact, i do not buy any game that has any micro transactions in unless it is purely for cosmetic reasons, or the game is free (hearthstone).

Take a look at the reviews on meta critic for shadows of war and the new COD and fans are not happy. I highly suspect that battlefront 2 will follow teh same course. But like i say, only a few people who buy legitimise the practice as a whole, which is why its market distorting. The only solution is that people en masse stop buying and playing these games, but i am highly doubtful this will be achieved. like others have pointed out, the indie market should be where all us disillusioned people go. On the plus side you will get to play great games like cupcake. On the bad, you can wave goodbye to star wars franchises and like. They will all be pay to win.

Anyway, the main reason i wrote to my MP is that the gambling industry is regulated to the hilt. But there is NOTHING there in the gaming industry. Or almost nothing. And teh fact that huge numbers of kids are playing these games worries me to the point that i felt compelled to write to my MP. In my view any game that has a loot box style microtransaction in should automatically be made an 18 certificate. That would at least make companies think twice before putting them in. I spoke to my friends niece a few weeks ago and she was playing a game with micro transactions in (on her smart phone), and she desperately wanted some character or other and was begging her mum to give her £4 so she could buy a loot crate. This actually made me feel a bit ill. Because i can recognise the same temptations that i might have if i were gambling, and the fact i see it in kids with practices like micro transactions and loot chests makes my stomach turn. I am an adult and can do what i like with my money. But kids need to be protected. And the industry seems hell bent on this idea, so the only recourse is government control.

 

[God of Kings]

@sherbz

That reminds me of something.

The popular Japanese smartphone game Puzzle & Dragons is a major offender of this issue. It is recommended to spend large amounts of real money in order to get good cards from the Rare Egg Machine (they're all randomized; each roll in the Rare Egg Machine costs 5 Magic Stones; Magic Stones are US$1 each, discounted upon purchasing them in bulk), and an even larger amount of real money to accumulate enough monster points (from disposing of cards; disposing of Rare Egg Machine Cards net many Monster Points, ranging from 3000 to 15,000) to get extremely powerful cards (they often cost at least 200,000 Monster Points). Even worse, updates are frequent enough that the meta can shift significantly, causing the player to need to spend more money.

Yes, it's possible to get all of this without spending real life money, but it would take so much time that once you get enough good cards to form a powerful deck, it becomes obsolete with the new content.

Fortunately, with new updates, some of the older cards get buffed. Cards don't get nerfed in Puzzle & Dragons.

Somehow, all of this escaped Japan's strict gambling laws.

 

[Ryika]

Fortunately, with new update, some of the older cards get buffed.

...not as bad as Hearthstone, then!

 

[Disgustipated]

All in all, I prefer status quo but with extended support.

I vote for status quo as well.

 

[Kwami]

@sherbz
Somehow, all of this escaped Japan's strict gambling laws.

Japan has a lot of "strict" laws that are basically never enforced. The laws against gambling are blatantly violated daily in every city in Japan. Have you heard of pachinko?

 

[clapyourhands]

@sherbz

That reminds me of something.

The popular Japanese smartphone game Puzzle & Dragons is a major offender of this issue. It is recommended to spend large amounts of real money in order to get good cards from the Rare Egg Machine (they're all randomized; each roll in the Rare Egg Machine costs 5 Magic Stones; Magic Stones are US$1 each, discounted upon purchasing them in bulk), and an even larger amount of real money to accumulate enough monster points (from disposing of cards; disposing of Rare Egg Machine Cards net many Monster Points, ranging from 3000 to 15,000) to get extremely powerful cards (they often cost at least 200,000 Monster Points). Even worse, updates are frequent enough that the meta can shift significantly, causing the player to need to spend more money.

Yes, it's possible to get all of this without spending real life money, but it would take so much time that once you get enough good cards to form a powerful deck, it becomes obsolete with the new content.

Fortunately, with new updates, some of the older cards get buffed. Cards don't get nerfed in Puzzle & Dragons.

Somehow, all of this escaped Japan's strict gambling laws.

As a PAD player I can attest that cards don't get nerfed BECAUSE of Japan's gambling laws. Because people pay money for the "gacha" system, nerfing a card post-release means that value is being taken away from a digital good already received, and is thus illegal. This sometimes works out negatively for game health (because obscenely broken cards must now be balanced around, since they can't be nerfed), but better for the consumer overall. Gambling laws also came up with some other mechanics that boiled down to a rule saying that a paid-only card cannot require another paid-only card to be obtained/function; that is, each paid card must be able to stand alone. The laws definitely affect the game, if not directly then through player backlash when they break one (ie: the second example). The game's large NA fanbase does bring up a point relevant to American gaming, however; no such laws exist in the US, and it was a point of contention during the PAD gambling law fiasco that, in theory, the system changes were only due to Japanese law, and had the rules not been in place no matter how often they are usually ignored, they would have gone through without incident.