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

[blackbutterfly]

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.

Regurgitate arguments for and against free/open source software (FOSS)

What you want is to strike a balance between sustainable game development (i.e. not loss making) and exploitation of customers. Games companies aren't the most profitable in the tech industry. In fact quite the opposite usually.

IMO the Civ single player game has pretty much been milked. IMO Civilization: New Dawn may inspire new opportunities for MP and MMO like CivRev and (the failed) CivWorld. They might be better suited to the kind of revenue Take-Two are looking for in the future.

 

[sherbz]

Watch this space for the battle front 2 saga and another round of micro transaction BS. Its all blowing up on reddit too. This guy sums up my opinion on the matter quite amicably:

 

[Zaarin]

We are regulated by a financial authority (the FCA).

 

[HF22]

I don't touch games with microtransactions, not because they are ultimately more expensive (which they may or may not be), but because its a terrible business model for customers to engage with.

Firstly because they are exploitative - They rely on a small number of basically addicted people providing the bulk of the revenue. Even if that makes it cheaper for others, that isn't ok, and indeed should be illegal due to the social costs.

And secondly because games become designed around the microtransactions, rather than user entertainment etc, which makes them worse games.

 

[God of Kings]

Take-Two, via Firaxis, isn't the only AAA developer making strategy games.

Square-Enix makes Final Fantasy Tactics, Sega makes the Endless series of games, and Nintendo makes Fire Emblem. Not just that, but Nintendo and Ubisoft teamed up to make Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, similar to one game Firaxis makes.

I haven't forgotten to mention Blizzard's StarCraft II and Hearthstone.

Paradox is a mid-sized developer.

By the way, many major video game companies nowadays are no doubt nickle-and-dime their customers through micro-transactions, even Nintendo as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Frostburn]

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.

I completely disagree with those gambling and financial regulations. I prefer individual freedom over government regulation in most instances, setting price caps and other regulations on gaming is one of those instances. Nobody is forcing you to play games or pay for microtransactions

 

[sherbz]

I completely disagree with those gambling and financial regulations. I prefer individual freedom over government regulation in most instances, setting price caps and other regulations on gaming is one of those instances. Nobody is forcing you to play games or pay for microtransactions

So you are a true Libertarian then. Whilst that may be ok in yankee doodle land. I very much prefer my society to at least try and address the various excesses that the corporate/capitalist market can force upon people. The social and environmental cost of unchecked capitalism is well documented. Lakes and rivers polluted; African mothers dependent on formula milk they cannot afford to buy; whole forests destroyed and habitats of wildlife ruined; people hopelessly addicted to gambling – either in the casino or online; pension funds recklessly gambled away in the pursuit of an ever bigger bottom line; and people taking out loans they cannot afford to repay and end up in massive debt cycles they cannot get out of. But its ok I guess. At least companies are making a profit. And people don’t need to do any of this stuff do they. Therefore its all ok

 

[Katakanja]

Watch this space for the battle front 2 saga and another round of micro transaction BS. Its all blowing up on reddit too. This guy sums up my opinion on the matter quite amicably:

"EA turns to the dark side"



When were they ever not on the dark side? Like sometime in the early 90's??

I completely disagree with those gambling and financial regulations. I prefer individual freedom over government regulation in most instances, setting price caps and other regulations on gaming is one of those instances. Nobody is forcing you to play games or pay for microtransactions

Those rules are not there to stop people like you or I exercising their "individual freedom". They are present to protect those who are vulnerable. As sherbz specifically points out in his example, the regulations are in place to stop the exploitation of people like the elderly or gambling addicts.

 

[Patine]

"EA turns to the dark side"



When were they ever not on the dark side? Like sometime in the early 90's??



Those rules are not there to stop people like you or I exercising their "individual freedom". They are present to protect those who are vulnerable. As sherbz specifically points out in his example, the regulations are in place to stop the exploitation of people like the elderly or gambling addicts.

They also fill the coffers of the PRC, which past a law a number of years ago instituting a tax on profits derived from virtual currencies, and, as we know, modern China has a huge gamer base.

 

[sherbz]

The Battlefront 2 subreddit is totally hilarious. If you are bored and want to laugh, then you can occupy yourself for hours. This is a PR disaster for EA. In the space of a few hours they have managed to glisten more downvotes on a post than any other in its entire history. Currently its over 600,000 downvotes. to put that into context, the next closest is 26,000 . Good! Thoroughly and richly deserved!

 

[Katakanja]

The Battlefront 2 subreddit is totally hilarious. If you are bored and want to laugh, then you can occupy yourself for hours. This is a PR disaster for EA. In the space of a few hours they have managed to glisten more downvotes on a post than any other in its entire history. Currently its over 600,000 downvotes. to put that into context, the next closest is 26,000 . Good! Thoroughly and richly deserved!

For me the hilarious part is how they have managed to shoot themselves in the foot so close to release. All the prerelease stuff was actually making it sound pretty good and fair - more content at launch than BF1, a singleplayer campaign, all DLC free, etc - and the initial reactions to the game were all positive.

I was actually thinking about picking this one up after skipping the last Battlefront, since that one was basically just rushed out to capitalise on TFA. Not anymore

 

[Ryika]

And then BF2 will be a bestseller anyway.

 

[Katakanja]

And then BF2 will be a bestseller anyway.

Yeah, in all likelihood it will be, though that doesn't bother me that much.

Tbh I'm less of a "Yeah! I'm sticking it to the eeevil coroporate overlords!!!" type and more of a "Well, I can spend the X hours of free time I would have spent grinding lootboxes in BF2 just playing other games/going to the cinema/reading a book or whatever". Its all about the small victories

 

[trev1972]

I think micro-transactions are a bad thing personally, mostly because they target people who are addicted and have no self restraint (it is ... i know one person who has spent money they dont have....on candy crush of all things!

I think it is the future for things such as MMO however, but i am struggling to understand how they can implement them on traditional SP games, without the base game suffering as a result.

I dont have an issue with the DLC, they are a bit overpriced (8.99 for 2 civs as an example) but not going to bankrupt people

 

[Kimurae]

Take-Two, via Firaxis, isn't the only AAA developer making strategy games.

Square-Enix makes Final Fantasy Tactics, Sega makes the Endless series of games, and Nintendo makes Fire Emblem. Not just that, but Nintendo and Ubisoft teamed up to make Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, similar to one game Firaxis makes.

I haven't forgotten to mention Blizzard's StarCraft II and Hearthstone.

Paradox is a mid-sized developer.

By the way, many major video game companies nowadays are no doubt nickle-and-dime their customers through micro-transactions, even Nintendo as I mentioned earlier.

Final Fantasy Tactics was a AA game when it was made on the playstation; its last entry was the port of the 2007 PSP remake on iOS.
I would also consider the Endless series AA games, which I applaud Sega for publishing. Sega's big AAA Strategy games are the Total War series, and Valkyria Chronicles 1 (PS3)

I know Fire Emblem is planned for the Switch, but Awakening and Fates are more in the AA bucket as well. The last AAA outing was Path of Radiance for the Wii.

I'm surprised NiSA hasn't been mentioned: Disgaea is the most active AA Strategy game on the consoles atm.

It makes sense for most strategy games to be AA, the larger budget and graphics AAA games demand is not usually needed for a strategy game.

 

[KayAU]

The so called "triple A" part of the games industry has become more or less irrelevant to me. In general, they seem to innovate primarily in monetization and ways to screw over the consumers. This would bother me a lot more if there weren't so many great indie games I could play instead. Are there good games coming out of the big publishers, which I would have liked to play? Sure. Do I play them? No, not if they come with loot boxes, microtransactions, DRM, account sign up requirements, always online, or any such nonesense. I just can't be bothered.

In fact, at this point, the Civilization series are the only from that part of the industry which I really care about. It would be a shame if it went the way of so many other games, and ended up on my "can't be bothered" list. They already took one step in the wrong direction by making the Aztech civ a pre-order timed exclusive.

 

[Frostburn]

So you are a true Libertarian then. Whilst that may be ok in yankee doodle land. I very much prefer my society to at least try and address the various excesses that the corporate/capitalist market can force upon people. The social and environmental cost of unchecked capitalism is well documented. Lakes and rivers polluted; African mothers dependent on formula milk they cannot afford to buy; whole forests destroyed and habitats of wildlife ruined; people hopelessly addicted to gambling – either in the casino or online; pension funds recklessly gambled away in the pursuit of an ever bigger bottom line; and people taking out loans they cannot afford to repay and end up in massive debt cycles they cannot get out of. But its ok I guess. At least companies are making a profit. And people don’t need to do any of this stuff do they. Therefore its all ok

"yankee doodle land"

yankee doodle land.. is that were government financial regulations give huge banks like JP Morgan/Chase and Goldman Sachs a monopoly on pensions meaning I can't put my pensions in hedge funds which vastly outperform those investment banks? Is that the same land where Federally Guaranteed mortgages defaulted in record numbers causing a massive housing bubble and subsequent collapse, only to be bailed out?


"The social and environmental cost of unchecked capitalism is well documented."

The social and economic costs of government intervention in the free market are well documented. The success of more free-market economies relative to economies where the government plays a larger role is also well-documented. More important than the social or economic impact, is the principle of freedom itself. I'd prefer freedom over a better economy. Luckily you don't have to choose just one with capitalism.

"people hopelessly addicted to gambling"

So because people choose to gamble irresponsibly, my freedom to gamble should be infringed upon by a government body? I'd prefer it if I were free to gamble and don;t have to suffer because of somebody else's irresponsibility. Do you think Las Vegas' gambling operations should be shut down? what gambling laws/regulations would you propose?

"pension funds recklessly gambled away in the pursuit of an ever bigger bottom line"

Government regulation gives large banks a monopoly on pensions and they get out-performed by outfits that are not allowed to handle pension funds. Really crazy that people want to be forced into a select few banking institutions as oppose to wanting the freedom to choose their own.

"and people taking out loans they cannot afford to repay and end up in massive debt cycles they cannot get out of. "

So my lending and borrowing freedom should be impacted by other's irresponsibility? Why should my borrowing or lending be affected the perceived irresponsibility of other people? It should be my risk and my risk alone. Why make your problems my problems?

" At least companies are making a profit. And people don’t need to do any of this stuff do they. Therefore its all ok"

I'm sure if we just give away everything society will still be just as productive and motivated /s

Funny how a socialist that want a nanny-state can be so condescending towards a person who just wants freedom.

 

[clapyourhands]

Theoretical politics aside, we can look at two countries with already-existing laws regarding in-game purchases to see how they handle it.

• China passed a law last year specifically targeting online gaming in order to enforce market regulations, most notably requiring game distributors to disclose loot box odds. This was a new ruling that sought to place some sort of control over a previously largely-unregulated sphere.
• Japan's Gacha Laws were rulings based on pre-existing laws regarding physical goods, specifically the prohibitions against false advertising. In actuality they are very narrow in scope; specifically, games cannot utilize a "kompu-gacha" system where multiple luck-based purchases are combined to form a "complete" item. Support for the law talked a lot about how such games aimed advertising at children who lacked the ability to understand how a single piece of a complete item was useless, and thus would continue rolling and spending money without any gain (though the actual law itself doesn't specify ads targeting children). In practice, it's scope is a bit wider in that implementations that violate the spirit of the law without violating the word of the law (ie: purchases that technically don't have to be combined to be useful but are much better that way) often face a lot of community backlash with the law backing them in spirit.

Two different approaches, with the first one being much more regulating than the second. I'm of the camp that there should be some sort of regulations regarding online "gambling" in the form of loot boxes and other roulettes, especially when aimed towards children, but that's my own opinion. These are just ways that such laws have been implemented in other countries.

 

[Frostburn]

Theoretical politics aside, we can look at two countries with already-existing laws regarding in-game purchases to see how they handle it.

• China passed a law last year specifically targeting online gaming in order to enforce market regulations, most notably requiring game distributors to disclose loot box odds. This was a new ruling that sought to place some sort of control over a previously largely-unregulated sphere.
• Japan's Gacha Laws were rulings based on pre-existing laws regarding physical goods, specifically the prohibitions against false advertising. In actuality they are very narrow in scope; specifically, games cannot utilize a "kompu-gacha" system where multiple luck-based purchases are combined to form a "complete" item. Support for the law talked a lot about how such games aimed advertising at children who lacked the ability to understand how a single piece of a complete item was useless, and thus would continue rolling and spending money without any gain (though the actual law itself doesn't specify ads targeting children). In practice, it's scope is a bit wider in that implementations that violate the spirit of the law without violating the word of the law (ie: purchases that technically don't have to be combined to be useful but are much better that way) often face a lot of community backlash with the law backing them in spirit.

Two different approaches, with the first one being much more regulating than the second. I'm of the camp that there should be some sort of regulations regarding online "gambling" in the form of loot boxes and other roulettes, especially when aimed towards children, but that's my own opinion. These are just ways that such laws have been implemented in other countries.

But we already have regulations in the States that don't allow persons under 18 to have a credit card.

Do 18+ year olds really need government supervision over their gaming purchases?

I could understand if 6 year olds are making the purchases, but if they have access to a credit card than it's ultimately the parent's fault, and the parent that will suffer.

I think if anything, age should be regulated (which it already is) rather than the types of transactions.

 

[Gorbles]

@Frostburn

Except, libertarians very rarely want true freedom. They want freedom applied to their own actions, but rules upheld against others. Very few "libertarians" would be happy with muggers, serial killers, rapists, etc. So some freedom, as usual, has to be suspended in face of a fair and equal society.

Which is exactly what "socialists" want. You're just quibbling over the details, while pretending that your own rules are truly "free". They're not.

The same goes for the for-profit private industry that is video games development. The need for a free and fair gaming experience has to be tempered - for good and for bad - by the necessity to turn a profit. This doesn't excuse predatory models, this is simply me explaining where they originate. Certainly, developers don't sit there nodding their heads along with it.