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

[Frostburn]

This is the direction of gaming in general. New games for consoles 20 years ago (think N64) were $60..... Majority of other consumer goods have at least doubled in price since then yet video games have not inflated that much. No matter what the business model, as consumers we should fully expect a full-fledged gaming experience to become more expensive as time goes on- and a better gaming experience to go along with it.

All that being said- I wouldn't worry too much about Civ 7 as Civ 5 and 6 already had/have micro transactions in the form of DLC. The full Civ experience, when purchased on release and purchased individually, is one of the more expensive single-player gaming experiences being offered at the moment. It's also pretty successful. I don't see the executives changing the Civ model in a drastic way any time soon.

 

[Ryika]

This is the direction of gaming in general. New games for consoles 20 years ago (think N64) were $60..... Majority of other consumer goods have at least doubled in price since then yet video games have not inflated that much. No matter what the business model, as consumers we should fully expect a full-fledged gaming experience to become more expensive as time goes on- and a better gaming experience to go along with it.

Nah. That may seem intuitive, but it's utter BS. The reduction in distribution cost alone thanks to the switch to mostly digital distribution already counters most of the inflation, the userbase had grown steadily, and the games that the studios that push microtransactions put onto the market, generally do not suffer from feature inflation that would justify higher prices, they stay about the same size. In fact, it's almost all yearly-franchise-games that get infested with lootboxes, and that's no coincidence. The actual goal of such microtransactions is to flatten out risks and profits into steady revenue streams over revenue spikes whenever a game is released. That steady revenue stream is the main benefit, that's why companies publish fewer games, but then spend more resources on keeping them alive with new content.

That is not a bad thing per-se, especially if that content is optional (which was often a problem for multiplayer-games, map-packs that split playerbases, etc), and/or meaningful, but it most certainly has it's tumors, and Lootboxes are the biggest one that exist right now.

 

[Frostburn]

Nah. That may seem intuitive, but it's utter BS. The reduction in distribution cost alone thanks to the switch to mostly digital distribution already counters most of the inflation, the userbase had grown steadily, and the games that the studios that push microtransactions put onto the market, generally do not suffer from feature inflation that would justify higher prices, they stay about the same size. In fact, it's almost all yearly-franchise-games that get infested with lootboxes, and that's no coincidence. The actual goal of such microtransactions is to flatten out risks and profits into steady revenue streams over revenue spikes whenever a game is released. That steady revenue stream is the main benefit, that's why companies publish fewer games, but then spend more resources on keeping them alive with new content.

That is not a bad thing per-se, especially if that content is optional (which was often a problem for multiplayer-games, map-packs that split playerbases, etc), and/or meaningful, but it most certainly has it's tumors, and Lootboxes are the biggest one that exist right now.

"The reduction in distribution cost alone thanks to the switch to mostly digital distribution already counters most of the inflation,". Right this would counter some or even all of the costs associated with game distribution, but that is only part of the equation. Development has gotten more expensive, and the cost of producing/distributing (supply) is only half of the equation. Demand is the other half of the equation. Prices aren't only determined by the cost of producing something, but also the demand for it. In theory, even if all costs stay the same, the inflation of the dollar would alone cause prices to increase.

"generally do not suffer from feature inflation that would justify higher prices". Profit alone is what justifies higher prices. If profit increases with higher prices than the increase is justified. If profits decrease, than they are charging too much.


"That is not a bad thing per-se, especially if that content is optional (which was often a problem for multiplayer-games, map-packs that split playerbases, etc), and/or meaningful, but it most certainly has it's tumors, and Lootboxes are the biggest one that exist right now."

Agreed, I think for most companies and their consumers it is a net-positive when done right. I don't think it's realistic to expect to experience full-fledged AAA gaming experience with periodic updates for $60 in this day and age. It would be great, but in the end I am willing to accept the increased cost of gaming, assuming continued increased quality

 

[Ryika]

Right this would counter some or even all of the costs associated with game distribution, but that is only part of the equation. Development has gotten more expensive, and the cost of producing/distributing (supply) is only half of the equation. Demand is the other half of the equation. Prices aren't only determined by the cost of producing something, but also the demand for it. In theory, even if all costs stay the same, the inflation of the dollar would alone cause prices to increase.

Not sure why you argue as if demand was a negative factor for profit, as it has only gone up, up, up thanks to video games becoming mainstream.

Profit alone is what justifies higher prices. If profit increases with higher prices than the increase is justified. If profits decrease, than they are charging too much.

Yeah, you're a good capitalist. I'll talk to you again in 10 years when your company has crashed because people have finally been fed up with your nonsense while you try to push the boundaries further and further.

Wouldn't it be nice if that actually happened?

 

[sherbz]

This is the direction of gaming in general. New games for consoles 20 years ago (think N64) were $60..... Majority of other consumer goods have at least doubled in price since then yet video games have not inflated that much. No matter what the business model, as consumers we should fully expect a full-fledged gaming experience to become more expensive as time goes on- and a better gaming experience to go along with it.

All that being said- I wouldn't worry too much about Civ 7 as Civ 5 and 6 already had/have micro transactions in the form of DLC. The full Civ experience, when purchased on release and purchased individually, is one of the more expensive single-player gaming experiences being offered at the moment. It's also pretty successful. I don't see the executives changing the Civ model in a drastic way any time soon.

I would say the jury is still out on whether civ 6 is going to be a success or not. At the moment it is maybe marginally ahead of where civ 5 was in its product life span. But it still has some serious issues IMO. I for one will be staying well away from any expansion until some of the major issues have been addressed. And Civ V is constantly about twice the player count of civ VI.

And like Valessa says, you are totally ignoring the reduced cost of digital distribution and also the market for games now. Take a look at the sales of call of duty, one of the most successful franchises ever in video games (if not the greatest):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/

In the early days each version sold about 5 million units. Now it sells around 30 million. If you are going to compare that to N64 games, The best selling game (mario kart) didnt even ship 10 million copies. COD ships 3 times that on an annual basis.

Profit alone is what justifies higher prices. If profit increases with higher prices than the increase is justified. If profits decrease, than they are charging too much

I suggest you look up the term "Market Failure" before you start coming up with stupid lines like this. The fact is that loot boxes and micro transactions distort the market. Because you have silly people at games companies that buy into the logic you have just used above. I.e. profits before people. To them, the fact that they alienate the majority of their fan base doesnt matter because the "profit" is all they really care about. Really you should be calling it out for what it is. An exploitative, greedy and immoral market practice that is actually a poison to the industry as a whole.

Quite frankly i would rather they move to a subscription system than all this loot box BS if they really care that much about guaranteed revenue streams. At least then its predictable and you know what you are getting. All you have at the moment is like a glorified slot machine.

 

[Zaarin]

Quite frankly i would rather they move to a subscription system than all this loot box BS if they really care that much about guaranteed revenue streams. At least then its predictable and you know what you are getting. All you have at the moment is like a glorified slot machine.

God forbid. Idiots gambling their money on lootboxes doesn't effect me--you know what they say about a fool and his money--but monthly subscriptions would. I refuse to pay a monthly subscription for single-player games--bad enough that this model has infected software (screw you, Photoshop and MS Word).

 

[Frostburn]

Not sure why you argue as if demand was a negative factor for profit, as it has only gone up, up, up thanks to video games becoming mainstream.


Yeah, you're a good capitalist. I'll talk to you again in 10 years when your company has crashed because people have finally been fed up with your nonsense while you try to push the boundaries further and further.

Wouldn't it be nice if that actually happened?

I am not arguing that demand is a negative for profit. I am arguing that price is merely a function of supply and demand. When the dollar inflates, each dollar becomes less valuable and thus a game at $60 in 2017 is cheaper than a $60 game in 1997. This would lead to an increased demand causing companies to adjust price in order to maximize profit.

"Yeah, you're a good capitalist. I'll talk to you again in 10 years when your company has crashed because people have finally been fed up with your nonsense while you try to push the boundaries further and further."

Can't tell if you're advocating for socialism or think that companies should not try to maximize profit.

 

[sherbz]

God forbid. Idiots gambling their money on lootboxes doesn't effect me--you know what they say about a fool and his money--but monthly subscriptions would. I refuse to pay a monthly subscription for single-player games--bad enough that this model has infected software (screw you, Photoshop and MS Word).

But it "does" affect you. If you play a game like COD, Shadows of war, Battlefront, or any other type of game that has a loot box in, then it has been specifically designed with that system in mind. And that means grinding. Or if not grinding, then paying to win.

 

[Frostburn]

I would say the jury is still out on whether civ 6 is going to be a success or not. At the moment it is maybe marginally ahead of where civ 5 was in its product life span. But it still has some serious issues IMO. I for one will be staying well away from any expansion until some of the major issues have been addressed. And Civ V is constantly about twice the player count of civ VI.

And like Valessa says, you are totally ignoring the reduced cost of digital distribution and also the market for games now. Take a look at the sales of call of duty, one of the most successful franchises ever in video games (if not the greatest):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/

In the early days each version sold about 5 million units. Now it sells around 30 million. If you are going to compare that to N64 games, The best selling game (mario kart) didnt even ship 10 million copies. COD ships 3 times that on an annual basis.



I suggest you look up the term "Market Failure" before you start coming up with stupid lines like this. The fact is that loot boxes and micro transactions distort the market. Because you have silly people at games companies that buy into the logic you have just used above. I.e. profits before people. To them, the fact that they alienate the majority of their fan base doesnt matter because the "profit" is all they really care about. Really you should be calling it out for what it is. An exploitative, greedy and immoral market practice that is actually a poison to the industry as a whole.

Quite frankly i would rather they move to a subscription system than all this loot box BS if they really care that much about guaranteed revenue streams. At least then its predictable and you know what you are getting. All you have at the moment is like a glorified slot machine.

Lootboxes are immoral? LOL

"Profits before people"

People are alienated because they aren't given cosmetics? If it is a horsehockey business model by which the market deems certain goods too expensive, the business will ultimately fail. If the business sees record profits, than that is not an indication that they are charging too much.

Game developers are not charities. They exist and operate for profit. Do you work for money, or do you volunteer all of your time to charity?

You telling me that I come up with "stupid lines" meanwhile maintain that micro-transactions are immoral an/or that businesses don't or shouldn't exist to maximize profit.

 

[Ryika]

Can't tell if you're advocating for socialism or think that companies should not try to maximize profit.

Socialism is where it's at. First, we turn gaming companies into public property, then we force modders to create games for free, and in the end I can play games without having to pay for them.

But no, I'm not arguing that companies should not try to maximize profit, I just hope gamers wise up at one point and ruin EA and similar companies for being the abusive companies that they are.

 

[Zaarin]

But it "does" affect you. If you play a game like COD, Shadows of war, Battlefront, or any other type of game that has a loot box in, then it has been specifically designed with that system in mind. And that means grinding. Or if not grinding, then paying to win.

Well, considering I have better taste in games than that, it still doesn't affect me.

 

[sherbz]

Lootboxes are immoral? LOL

"Profits before people"

People are alienated because they aren't given cosmetics? If it is a ****** business model by which the market deems certain goods too expensive, the business will ultimately fail. If the business sees record profits, than that is not an indication that they are charging too much.

Game developers are not charities. They exist and operate for profit. Do you work for money, or do you volunteer all of your time to charity?

You telling me that I come up with "stupid lines" meanwhile maintain that micro-transactions are immoral an/or that businesses don't or shouldn't exist to maximize profit.

You can laugh all you want. But the reason why it is immoral references this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...mers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/#53bc64f44065

So digest that for a minute - 0.15% of the players who play a mobile game account for over 50% of its over all revenue. There are some stories of some people paying literally millions into a single mobile game. It is "profits before people" because these types of market practices are directly and squarely aimed at these 0.15% of people - this is also why it is "exploitative". They ignore the other 99.85%, but at the same time, those people have to endure the endless pushing of marketing trying to get them to "buy buy buy". If you think thats ok for your entertainment of choice then go right ahead, carry on defending it. Personally i would rather see some sort of industry or government intervention to stop it from happening. Unless the industry decides it wants to listen to its consumers and stop being such greedy and immoral pigs.

 

[sherbz]

Well, considering I have better taste in games than that, it still doesn't affect me.

This reminds me of a poem i learnt when at school. It goes:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Frostburn]

You can laugh all you want. But the reason why it is immoral references this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...mers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/#53bc64f44065

So digest that for a minute - 0.15% of the players who play a mobile game account for over 50% of its over all revenue. There are some stories of some people paying literally millions into a single mobile game. It is "profits before people" because these types of market practices are directly and squarely aimed at these 0.15% of people - this is also why it is "exploitative". They ignore the other 99.85%, but at the same time, those people have to endure the endless pushing of marketing trying to get them to "buy buy buy". If you think thats ok for your entertainment of choice then go right ahead, carry on defending it. Personally i would rather see some sort of industry or government intervention to stop it from happening. Unless the industry decides it wants to listen to its consumers and stop being such greedy and immoral pigs.

Why do most game developers and publishers exist in the first place? To make money. Why wouldn't they try to maximize profits?

Also, do you realize many companies are public and have a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders?

What is stopping you from developing the best game ever and making all of the features available for free or a flat $60 fee? I don't get why you are saying other companies- who may have different motives than you (profits)- should do something instead of just doing it yourself and undercutting them.


>Personally i would rather see some sort of industry or government intervention to stop it from happening. Unless the industry decides it wants to listen to its consumers and stop being such greedy and immoral pigs

What is stopping you from developing and distributing games at whatever you deem a fair price? Why force others to do what you want? People should be free to either maximize profits, or make games for charity, government shouldn't force people to do develop games below market rate

 

[Zaarin]

You can laugh all you want. But the reason why it is immoral references this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...mers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/#53bc64f44065

So digest that for a minute - 0.15% of the players who play a mobile game account for over 50% of its over all revenue. There are some stories of some people paying literally millions into a single mobile game. It is "profits before people" because these types of market practices are directly and squarely aimed at these 0.15% of people - this is also why it is "exploitative". They ignore the other 99.85%, but at the same time, those people have to endure the endless pushing of marketing trying to get them to "buy buy buy". If you think thats ok for your entertainment of choice then go right ahead, carry on defending it. Personally i would rather see some sort of industry or government intervention to stop it from happening. Unless the industry decides it wants to listen to its consumers and stop being such greedy and immoral pigs.

You can't protect people from their own stupidity (or inability to say "no" to their children, as the case may be).

This reminds me of a poem i learnt when at school. It goes:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I'd really like to see how they'd come up with microtransactions for the walking simulators and point'n'clicks that make up the bulk of my gaming. RPGs, maybe...then again, with all my confidence lost in major RPG studios like BioWare and Bethesda, I really don't care if they continue to shoot themselves in the feet. As for shooters like you cited, if idiots want to shell out their money for lootcrates, that's nobody's business but their own; it's not the government's job to protect you from your own inability to control your spending habits.

 

[Frostburn]

You can't protect people from their own stupidity (or inability to say "no" to their children, as the case may be).


I'd really like to see how they'd come up with microtransactions for the walking simulators and point'n'clicks that make up the bulk of my gaming. RPGs, maybe...then again, with all my confidence lost in major RPG studios like BioWare and Bethesda, I really don't care if they continue to shoot themselves in the feet. As for shooters like you cited, if idiots want to shell out their money for lootcrates, that's nobody's business but their own; it's not the government's job to protect you from your own inability to control your spending habits.

Also- who is to say who is an idiot for making purchases?

For example, If I earn $750,000 a year, and I play 10 hours of a certain video game every week- is shelling out $1,000 on microtransactions to make that 10 hours more enjoyable really idiotic? Its less than 0.2% of my hypothetical annual salary yet the game consumes a much higher % of my time.

If something is too expensive- as deemed so by the market- than the product will fail.

 

[Ryika]

is shelling out $1,000 on microtransactions to make that 10 hours more enjoyable really idiotic?

If we consider that a few years ago you could get that for free with cheat codes... yeah, it's pretty idiotic that you accept that. May not hurt you because it's a small amount of your overall income, but you're still giving away money for something that, if people had some dignity, would be free for everyone.

Overall however, I agree that the people are just doing their job. It's more human nature that is the problem here. Because unlike frogs, it seems like we actually let ourselves be boiled to death as the water is slowly but surely heated up towards the boiling point. Anti-consumer behavior is profitable because consumers let companies get away with it, and for all the talk about Lootboxes, tons of people still buy those games.

That's the other great thing about capitalism though, I do not have to participate. The market is so big, and flooded with so many good indie-games of people who do not (have to) care about profit maximization that there's enough alternatives for people to go to.

 

[Frostburn]

If we consider that a few years ago you could get that for free with cheat codes... yeah, it's pretty idiotic that you accept that. May not hurt you because it's a small amount of your overall income, but you're still giving away money for something that, if people had some dignity, would be free for everyone.

I agree with the rest of your post but not the part I quoted.

You could never buy all over the Overwatch/League of Legends/etc. microtransactions with cheatcodes legally, ever. Those games have always operated off of micro-transactions. you could never legally instantly unlock stuff on GTA online with cheatcodes. You cant compare unlocking everything in GTA4 with unlocking everything in GTA Online, they are different experiences.

Also, I don't think that shelling out your money for video game micro-transactions means that you don't have any dignity. Seems like a very harsh judgment of a person's character based on such a superficial thing.

 

[Ryika]

You could never buy all over the Overwatch/League of Legends/etc. microtransactions with cheatcodes legally, ever. Those games have always operated off of micro-transactions. you could never legally instantly unlock stuff on GTA online with cheatcodes. You cant compare unlocking everything in GTA4 with unlocking everything in GTA Online, they are different experiences.

Well d'uh, because Overwatch didn't exist years ago. And League of Legends is free to play. A lot of the stuff that older games did via cheat codes, you now have to pay money for. And Pay2Play with microtransactions - now including microtransactions that give you power in PvP-games - is for the most part a completely new thing. But that again goes back to slowly being boiled to death.

Also, I don't think that shelling out your money for video game micro-transactions means that you don't have any dignity. Seems like a very harsh judgment of a person's character based on such a superficial thing.

It's the equivalent of thanking a person for pissing in your face. You can say all you want that you think it's not degrading, you might even say that being able to say "Thank you!" is empowering you as a customer, but other people will still see a smelly guy in wet clothes that has been urinated on.

 

[sherbz]

Why do most game developers and publishers exist in the first place? To make money. Why wouldn't they try to maximize profits?

Also, do you realize many companies are public and have a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders?

What is stopping you from developing the best game ever and making all of the features available for free or a flat $60 fee? I don't get why you are saying other companies- who may have different motives than you (profits)- should do something instead of just doing it yourself and undercutting them.


>Personally i would rather see some sort of industry or government intervention to stop it from happening. Unless the industry decides it wants to listen to its consumers and stop being such greedy and immoral pigs

What is stopping you from developing and distributing games at whatever you deem a fair price? Why force others to do what you want? People should be free to either maximize profits, or make games for charity, government shouldn't force people to do develop games below market rate

Companies do have a duty to try and maximise profits. But they also have a social responsibility to not screw people over and employ exploitative market practices against vulnerable people (amongst other things). It seems as though you are legitimising and even supporting the ugly side of capitalism. So it doesnt matter if an oil company screws up the environment. People can get oil from other companies. All that matters is that the company maximises its profits.

I work in finance. We are regulated by a financial authority (the FCA). My company is not allowed, as in it is ILLEGAL (and there are fines) to sell products to people who they are not intended/suitable for. So if i sell a risky investment that requires a high initial outlay, has a high degree of risk attached to it, and i sell it to a pensioner who is looking for a stable income for their retirement, I and my company would be prosecuted and fined. The gambling industry has similar restrictions placed on it. You cannot place more than a certain amount on a particular game within a time period. Odds need to be displayed. There is a limit on jackpots. Etc etc. Both sectors are regulated, and quite rightly.

There is nothing comparable or equivalent for the gaming industry other than age classifications for games (and historically there has been no need for it). If developers seem hell bent on this in a bid to try and make it "normal" (and maximise profits), it seems only fair and just in my view to push back and ask for government intervention in an attempt to regulate it like there are regulations in other sectors. And quite frankly, the exponents of these market practices (i.e. the publishers and developers) will only have themselves to blame for the interference.