Support NeoGAF

[llien]

Activision Blizzard held their earnings call a couple of days ago where the company recorded a record-breaking year with $7.16 billion in revenue.

• More than $4 billion were from micro transactions.
• Half of those come from mobile games (e.g. Candy Crush)
• The rest from "traditional" PC games like: Call of Duty: WWII, Overwatch, Destiny 2, Hearthstone, and World of Warcraft,

 

[Grimmrobe]

I don't mind microtransactions in games as long as they are implemented sensibly. There is a lot of negativity surrounding the word, but they are right that in general people are fine with the practice. Of course there is the occasional fiasco like what happened with Battlefront 2, but I think most devs have by now got the hang of how to make microtransactions work without them becoming obnoxious. Just look at all of Ubisoft's games, for example.

As for me, I rarely spend money on add-on content, but if the business practice makes more money for the companies that will spend money on making the games I love, then I am all for it.

 

[newtypepilot]

candy crush is still a thing?

 

[Kamina]

candy crush is still a thing?

The girls ar work play it, so yeah, apparently.

 

[Mathrin]

2 billion from one app.
2 Billion from other ActiBlizz games.

Stop the world. I want to get off. This is a prime example of how a small number of whales, and the larger casual userbase makes all of this bitching about it being a shitty way to make money from games after they purchase the game, have no effect. (hearthstone not included given it's based around microtransactions)

 

[VertigoOA]

I can't imagine Destiny MTX bringing in that much revenue when it's all useless shaders and easily obtainable in-game. Always seemed like driveby faux outreeeage.

 

[DonJimbo]

Long live microtransaction thats what publishers say
Im against microtransactions because they ruin my gaming expiriences

 

[gioGAF]

Sad state of affairs indeed. Most of their revenue came from MTX, I guess this means actual games are probably dead for them.

I bought CoD: WW2 (game itself only) and feel rather disappointed with my purchase. It is a much slicker application of MTX than Battlefront 2. Activision is not as stupid as EA. However they are doing the same exact thing. Everything in this game is built around those stupid loot boxes.

Slowed progression that can be circumvented by loot boxes. "Cosmetic" weapon variants that DO offer a significant advantage (better iron sights) through loot boxes. Pretty sure their whole netcode is built around promoting their loot boxes (since it is proprietary, we don't get to see the garbage they are implementing under the hood).

 

[Nester99]

2 billion from one app.
2 Billion from other ActiBlizz games.

Stop the world. I want to get off. This is a prime example of how a small number of whales, and the larger casual userbase makes all of this bitching about it being a shitty way to make money from games after they purchase the game, have no effect. (hearthstone not included given it's based around microtransactions)

Its not $2b from one app. Read the OP. its from mobile games (hence plural) and he gave one example. King has about 30 games right now.
I would also like to add that you do not purchase the mobile games like candy crush, you get them for free.

Talk about misrepresenting the OP.

 

[Zog]

I don't mind microtransactions in games as long as they are implemented sensibly.

What is sensible?

 

[TTOOLL]

I haven't downloaded a "free" game in ages, fuck that shit. Actually, even the paid ones aren't that good and I believe some still offer some kind of transaction in game, it's absurd.

 

[makaveli60]

The beginning of the end...

 

[Zog]

I haven't downloaded a "free" game in ages, fuck that shit. Actually, even the paid ones aren't that good and I believe some still offer some kind of transaction in game, it's absurd.

It is absurd but people continue to give micro transactions the benefit of the doubt instead of outright condemning them.

 

[Grimmrobe]

What is sensible?

Like I said, Ubisoft seems to have the model down pretty well. In their games, the upgrades you can get are all "pay to not grind" or "pay to look cool", and never "pay to win". They also make sure never to split their playerbases based on who has the DLCs and who doesn't.

In Siege and For Honor, for example, you can pay to unlock the extra operators/ heroes that aren't part of the base game, or if you don't want to open your wallet you can just grind for them (each new character takes maybe 25 in-game hours to unlock). The extra characters are not OP at all, are worth the money IMO for the depth they add to the game, and do not split the player pool (those who have unlocked them can play with those that haven't). On top of that you can also buy cosmetic skins for items if you really want that $wag (which you can also get from random loot drops just from playing the game anyway).

Essentially, they have implemented a model where the players who are most invested in the game and want to sink hundreds of hours into it are free to spend more money on it if they want to, and this doesn't adversely affect more casual players in any way.

 

[Zog]

Like I said, Ubisoft seems to have the model down pretty well. In their games, the upgrades you can get are all "pay to not grind" or "pay to look cool", and never "pay to win". They also make sure never to split their playerbases based on who has the DLCs and who doesn't.

In Siege and For Honor, for example, you can pay to unlock the extra operators/ heroes that aren't part of the base game, or if you don't want to open your wallet you can just grind for them (each new character takes maybe 25 in-game hours to unlock). The extra characters are not OP at all, are worth the money IMO for the depth they add to the game, and do not split the player pool (those who have unlocked them can play with those that haven't). On top of that you can also buy cosmetic skins for items if you really want that $wag (which you can also get from random loot drops just from playing the game anyway).

Essentially, they have implemented a model where the players who are most invested in the game and want to sink hundreds of hours into it are free to spend more money on it if they want to, and this doesn't adversely affect more casual players in any way.

Isn't Pay not to Grind the same as Pay to Win? As far as cosmetic micro transactions go, they only exist as a foot in the door for the rest of the garbage and as such I condemn them all.

 

[Mathrin]

Its not $2b from one app. Read the OP. its from mobile games (hence plural) and he gave one example. King has about 30 games right now.
I would also like to add that you do not purchase the mobile games like candy crush, you get them for free.

Talk about misrepresenting the OP.

Funnily enough, I wasn't talking about the mobile apps when I said about microtransactions after you buy the game - I am pretty sure you knew that too, but thanks for talking to me like I've never used a smartphone in my life.

I'll take that I didn't see it was multiple mobile games, but you're acting like the other 2 billion, hell - call it 1.5 billion allowing for an obscene amount of money from Hearthstone which as you'll note I said I wasn't counting - isn't remotely a staggering amount for in game purchases.

Even 2 billion dollars from 30 mobile games is a disgusting amount of money, but the rest from games you have to buy first to have the pleasure of these microtransactions?

I refer back to my point that clearly the crusades against lootboxes and microtransactions count for very little in the grand scheme of things, SWBF2 notwithstanding.

 

[Grimmrobe]

Isn't Pay not to Grind the same as Pay to Win?

No, because the mechanic-altering unlockables (new characters) are not OP, as I explained.

As far as cosmetic micro transactions go, they only exist as a foot in the door for the rest of the garbage and as such I condemn them all.

Without the sustained income from cosmetic microtransactions, Ubi would not be able to continue to improve upon and support their awesome games to the extent that they do, and as such I wholeheartedly condone them, cosmetic and otherwise.

 

[Zog]

No, because the mechanic-altering unlockables (new characters) are not OP, as I explained.



Without the sustained income from cosmetic microtransactions, Ubi would not be able to continue to improve upon and support their awesome games to the extent that they do, and as such I wholeheartedly condone them, cosmetic and otherwise.

So if grinding were required to finish the game then you agree that 'pay not to have to grind' would be 'pay to win'?

As for the cosmetic micro transactions, do you agree that they are the foot in the door. They are the reason people defend micro transactions as a whole and allow for the garbage micro transactions?

 

[-MD-]

I've spent like $20 over the last decade on microtransactions.

 

[Grimmrobe]

So if grinding were required to finish the game then you agree that 'pay not to have to grind' would be 'pay to win'?

I am talking about unlockables in multiplayer games, which is what the term 'pay 2 win' usually refers to, since there is someone doing the winning. There is no 'finishing' these games.

If you are talking about 'pay 2 win' in singleplayer games (I guess we should call this 'pay 2 finish'), then yes that's pretty lame, but I can't think of many examples of this. I believe when Dead Space 3 came out people were complaining about being able to buy health kits and such, which ruined the atmosphere of the game? As long as things like this are not obtrusive though, I don't see why having optional paid-for add-ons in singleplayer games should bother anyone. Just don't buy them if you don't want to see them. It's not like the NPCs of the game are going to be buying them and using them to kill and teabag you.

As for the cosmetic micro transactions, do you agree that they are the foot in the door. They are the reason people defend micro transactions as a whole and allow for the garbage micro transactions?

I am defending microtransactions as a whole, because I do not believe they are universally a bad thing, because of the examples of their positive use that I have given you.

Yes, there have been instances of poor usage of microtransactions, such as maybe Battlefront II recently (I don't know for sure, I haven't played it). This does not mean they are always bad.

If games are to become increasingly complex, with larger budgets and teams of people working on them, which they are, then the people making them need to find even more effective ways to make money from them. Microtransactions are one way of doing this, and they can be implemented without inversely affecting our enjoyment, as has been demonstrated by companies like Ubisoft, Valve and Blizzard.

 

[Zog]

I am talking about unlockables in multiplayer games, which is what the term 'pay 2 win' usually refers to, since there is someone doing the winning. There is no 'finishing' these games.

If you are talking about 'pay 2 win' in singleplayer games (I guess we should call this 'pay 2 finish'), then yes that's pretty lame, but I can't think of many examples of this. I believe when Dead Space 3 came out people were complaining about being able to buy health kits and such, which ruined the atmosphere of the game? As long as things like this are not obtrusive though, I don't see why having optional paid-for add-ons in singleplayer games should bother anyone. Just don't buy them if you don't want to see them. It's not like the NPCs of the game are going to be buying them and using them to kill and teabag you.



I am defending microtransactions as a whole, because I do not believe they are universally a bad thing, because of the examples of their positive use that I have given you.

Yes, there have been instances of poor usage of microtransactions, such as maybe Battlefront II recently (I don't know for sure, I haven't played it). This does not mean they are always bad.

If games are to become increasingly complex, with larger budgets and teams of people working on them, which they are, then the people making them need to find even more effective ways to make money from them. Microtransactions are one way of doing this, and they can be implemented without being obtrusive, as has been demonstrated by companies like Ubisoft, Valve and Blizzard.

Just don't buy them hasn't helped slowed their growth and eventually the choice will be to buy them or stop gaming.

Games don't have to have ever increasing budgets, that model is not sustainable and will eventually kill the industry one way or the other. I am a consumer and I try to think like a consumer not like a corporate board member. Many people fall into the desperate trap of being willing to accept anything from game companies as long as the games keep coming but everyone has their their limits, some of us have already reached ours.

 

[Bodom78]

Wow, that is crazy profit.

I'm happy to say that I contributed absolutly nothing to their profits and never will.

 

[Droxcy]

I spend a decent amount on micros. It's rare but I do more often than not purchase them.

CS:GO skins when wanted, Fortnite skins when good ones pop up, Runescape Keys for opening loot boxes. Then that one time I payed a modder on GTA:O for 500m.

 

[Grimmrobe]

Just don't buy them hasn't helped so far and eventually the choice will be to buy them or stop gaming.

When I said "Just don't buy them", I was referring to the add-ons. Just don't buy the add-ons and enjoy the base game. Why would you have to stop gaming if you don't want to buy DLC?

Games don't have to ever increasing budgets, that model is not sustainable and will eventually kill the industry one way or the other. I am a consumer and I try to think like a consumer not like a corporate board member. Many people fall into the desperate trap of being willing to accept anything from as long as the games keep coming but everyone has their their limits, some of us have already reached ours.

I would like my games to have ever-increasing budgets, because I would like them to get better and better. What makes you think this will one day 'kill the industry'? Films have become more and more expensive to produce over the years as technology has progressed - why shouldn't videogames?

 

[Zog]

When I said "Just don't buy them", I was referring to the add-ons. Just don't buy the add-ons and enjoy the base game. Why would you have to stop gaming if you don't want to buy DLC?



I would like my games to have ever-increasing budgets, because I would like them to get better and better. What makes you think this will one day 'kill the industry'? Films have become more and more expensive to produce over the years as technology has progressed - why shouldn't videogames?

I am saying that eventually you will either be forced to buy the add ons to get a full game or just stop gaming. Ever increasing budgets will lead to a situation where add ons become required because needing to sell 20 million copies of a game to profit is not going to work.

Every mobile game I have ever played makes progress almost impossible without buying some micro transactions. Waiting 48 hours in real time for a small task to complete will make it's way to retail games.

 

[ThatOneGrunt]

God it's no wonder modern games seem adopt more and more mobile game like features. I can't fault a developer for wanting to make more money while spending less on development. How much could it have possibly cost to make Candy Crush? And it's paid out 2 billion?

 

[Grimmrobe]

I am saying that eventually you will either be forced to buy the add ons to get a full game or just stop gaming. Ever increasing budgets will lead to a situation where add ons become required because needing to sell 20 million copies of a game to profit is not going to work.

Can you tell me why you think this? I don't see any reason why this should ever happen. At what point exactly does a game become 'too big'? What would you have told me 20 years ago when games had budgets 1/100th of the size that they do today?

Every mobile game I have ever played makes progress almost impossible without buying some micro transactions. Waiting 48 hours in real time for a small task to complete will make it's way to retail games.

I am not talking about mobile games. If such mechanics ever do make their way into retail games, no one who buys retail games would buy them because they would be shit. Next you will be telling me that all games will soon come equipped with windscreen wipers because cars sell well.

 

[Spukc]

I don't get all the hate for micro transactions in my games its not that the games cost money to get. Free 2 play wooo

They make it like this so the user base is way bigger and that whales can make other people get the games they like for free.

Oh wait fuck paid modern console games then.

 

[Zog]

Can you tell me why you think this? I don't see any reason why this should ever happen. At what point exactly does a game become 'too big'? What would you have told me 20 years ago when games had budgets 1/100th of the size that they do today?

Maybe I would have told you that in 2018 budgets would be so big that companies NEED micro transactions to stay profitable.

I am not talking about mobile games. If such mechanics ever do make their way into retail games, no one who buys retail games would buy them because they would be shit. Next you will be telling me that all games will soon come equipped with windscreen wipers because cars sell well.

Be honest, did you think micro transactions would cross over from mobile games to retail games?

 

[Zambayoshi]

Seems like I am not part of the target audience for AAA games any more. I want to play single-player games like Mass Effect 2. It had some substantial DLC along with other superficial DLC, which didn't affect the game. Mass Effect 3 saw the introduction of loot boxes, along with the DLC styles of ME2. The loot boxes seemed OK until you realised that whilst different levels of loot box guaranteed a rare item, that rare item could be a cosmetic upgrade for an existing multiplayer character or a weapon upgrade for an existing weapon. It was borderline P2W for the weapons. I know I never got the highest levels of the ultra-rare weapons because I didn't buy enough boxes. Although I had fun with the multiplayer the loot boxes eventually tarnished that memory, like realising that I'd been taken advantage of under the guise of having fun. It's sad that this system is now pretty standard for MP games.

I'd rather AAA publishers got rid of all the loot boxes and just charged a flat annual subscription (like a season pass) which, say for $20, would get you a guaranteed number of multiplayer game updates/new content throughout the year. No need for DLC, cosmetic or otherwise. You pay your $20 and that's it. I imagine that this method has been dismissed by the publishers, however, due to not providing enough ongoing revenue compared to loot boxes and other MTX.

 

[Grimmrobe]

Maybe I would have told you that in 2018 budgets would be so big that companies NEED micro transactions to stay profitable.

Sure, and as I have explained above this can be done unobtrusively, so what's the problem?

Be honest, did you think micro transactions would cross over from mobile games to retail games?

If I could have predicted that, I would probably be a billionaire. As it is, the business practice has crossed mediums, perhaps with a little friction at first, and has now been adapted and refined over many years by many different companies, to the point where it is pretty well streamlined and beneficial to players and devs alike.

 

[Zog]

Sure, and as I have explained above this can be done unobtrusively, so what's the problem?

As I said, If budgets continue to increase, micro transactions will be become required.

If I could have predicted that, I would probably be a billionaire. As it is, the business practice has crossed mediums, perhaps with a little friction at first, and has now been adapted and refined over many years by many different companies, to the point where it is pretty well streamlined and beneficial to players and devs alike.

Beneficial to players?? LOL ok let's just agree to disagree, we have completely opposite views.

 

[TYRiAX]

I don't like the term microtransactions either. Call them what they really are, MACROtransactions

 

[RafterXL]

Meh, I'm indifferent about the whole issue. If I don't want to buy micro-transactions I don't and if i do, I do. I probably own 200+ games from this generation alone and I can't think of a single time added, paid content has ruined my experience.

 

[dispensergoinup]

I've bought a ton of WoW mounts and pets and also a bunch of OW lootboxes, so I contributed to this.

Also, had no idea Candy Crush is still killin' it. Damn.