Support NeoGAF

[Thiagosc777]

Usually when people criticize microtransactions, there are always those defenders who will claim "the industry needs to make money" or how microtransactions are necessary.

Here I present you with the following evidence:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/act...to-fire-its-cfo-for-an-unspecified-cause.html

Neumann, 48, received $9.47 million in total compensation in Activision Blizzard's most recent fiscal year, a filing says.

He made almost 10 million dollars in one year. Compare it to the budget of a AAA game. How much do they cost? Around 50 million dollars? So he's made a fifth of a AAA budget for himself alone.

Here is the question. Do they need to microtransactions to pay developers and fund new games, or to make the bank accounts of people like him fatter?

The only people who benefit from microtransactions are the higher ups in those companies. Everyone else, gamers and developers alike, don't benefit from it.

EDIT:
Funny, they can't afford paying overtime for developers who do 100 hour weeks, but they can afford to pay one guy 10 million.

 

[Shifty]

One individual making almost $10mil doesn't prove anything. You'd need information that straight up isn't available to the general public in order to build a legitimately valid case about where the money from microtransactions goes and whether or not it's being misused. High-ranking suits getting fat paychecks is nothing new for big business.

And I say this as someone who holds great disdain for microtransactions, fat cat execs, and the ludicrous lack of budget control AAA games have exhibited since the jump to HD.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

Here are the facts.

• Games take much longer to make
• Games require much larger development staff
• Games are much more expensive to make
• The price of games has remained relatively static for the last 25+ years

Microtransactions are a necessary evil, sales are not enough, they have to supplement their games beyond release. It's either that or they need to start charging $100 a game, that's how much games should cost right now with inflation.

 

[Vawn]

Do you know how expensive AAA games are to make today? MANY multiple times more than games than did in the past when they first started charging $50-$60.

And $60 in the 90s was significantly more than $60 today.

Games either need to have their prices raised or publishers need to find other ways to make their money back.

 

[chilleverest]

Heres are the facts :

- Microtransactions shouldn't tread along with borderline gambling pattern.
- Microtransactions shouldn't be in a FULL priced game,period, regardless of the inflation. There are other genuine ways to make money other than paywalls/microtransactions. (Eg: CDPR's success had nothing to do with microtrasactions)
- If people opt out to defend microtransactions (as seen above, by a clown), then maybe they should stick to f2p mobile/free games.

 

[Raven117]

So long as its only cosmetic, it’s ehatever to me. I do think gamers have sufficiently pushed back hard on companies who tried to introduce a pay to win type deal (like EA and Star Wars).

 

[Vawn]

I should state, that I'm not a fan of microtransactions. But, I recognize games need more than $60 to continue pushing the bounds for AAA games.

I think the $60 price tag ceiling for all games is outdated. Certain games frankly are worth more than $60. I'd rather pay more up front for something like Witcher 3 or Red Dead 2, than feeling like I need to be nickeled and dimed while playing.

 

[LordRaptor]

Do they need to microtransactions to pay developers and fund new games, or to make the bank accounts of people like him fatter?

Why do you think it is an EITHER / OR situation?

Because its pretty fucking likely that its to fund development AND to make executives rich.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Why do you think it is an EITHER / OR situation?

Because its pretty fucking likely that its to fund development AND to make executives rich.

When an executive is making a fifth of the budget and the developers aren't even making a 1000th of it, then it is an either/or situation.

 

[nkarafo]

Not every game needs to be a GTA V level production. Nintendo and CD projekt RED seems to be fine without microtransactions and gambling systems. And the Witcher 3 was a massive game.

Now if you want to spend a lot on a huge open world game with all the micro-details, sure. Make it cost more $. But i don't see why we need microtransactions in smaller productions.

 

[LordRaptor]

When an executive is making a fifth of the budget and the developers aren't even making a 1000th of it, then it is an either/or situation.

No it isn't.
Investors put money into companies because they want to make more money back. If they're not going to get rich by doing so they don't fucking bother.
Development studios need money to make products. That money typically comes from investors. If they don't have money, they don't develop shit.

So if you don't like the idea other people are richer than you, you know, oh well.
But why pretend that if people wanting to get rich werent paying for games to be made money is going to come from nowhere to fund that shit, because videogames are charities or some shit?

 

[Thiagosc777]

No it isn't.
Investors put money into companies because they want to make more money back. If they're not going to get rich by doing so they don't fucking bother.
Development studios need money to make products. That money typically comes from investors. If they don't have money, they don't develop shit.

So if you don't like the idea other people are richer than you, you know, oh well.
But why pretend that if people wanting to get rich werent paying for games to be made money is going to come from nowhere to fund that shit, because videogames are charities or some shit?

Way to miss the point, eh?

I am just pointing out where the money goes.

The "excuse" for microtransactions is that games are expensive to make, therefore studios need more money. But this money seems to be going to the hands of a few and not to the developers.

If they can afford to pay 10 million to one guy in one year, then how can't they afford a AAA game?

That's like someone buying a Ferrari and then later claiming they can't afford a pizza.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I mean I’m all for getting rid of, or toning down, micro transactions (especially in AAA games) but I think the premise of this argument is silly. This feels like someone just trying to pick a fight, much like your thread about the Insomniac dude on twitter.

You seem to have an axe to grind.

 

[LordRaptor]

If they can afford to pay 10 million to one guy in one year, then how can't they afford a AAA game?

If you actually want to read about the economics of game development, read this article.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Here are the facts.

• Games take much longer to make
• Games require much larger development staff
• Games are much more expensive to make
• The price of games has remained relatively static for the last 25+ years

Microtransactions are a necessary evil, sales are not enough, they have to supplement their games beyond release. It's either that or they need to start charging $100 a game, that's how much games should cost right now with inflation.

There is a LOT of waste in the game industry. When I worked there, there were weeks when I worked maybe 30 minutes a day. Poor planning meant I couldn’t proceed because I was waiting on other systems to be finished or bugs to be fixed or an artist to produce a particular asset. I spent more time waiting to work than actually working. Then, Friday afternoon, whatever feature I was waiting on would get finished enough to proceed, and I’d have to work all weekend because the milestone was due on Monday. So I’d spend weeks with nothing to do, then have to crunch all my work into days. Inevitably,this produced poor work from most of us, that we’d then spend a lot of time rewriting.

Granted, one example, and not a very recent one, but I think we could’ve accomplished just as much, faster and better, with a much smaller team for about 90% of the project’s duration. It would’ve helped to have better management, and milestones are six kinds of bullshit.

 

[Daymos]

We all just need to collectively ignore microtransactions and never buy into them AND let the industry know that we don't care about 4k resolutions so that games are only 1080p.

No 4k reduces development costs and no microtransactions gets rid of those too.

It's never going to happen, but in my mind I find the problems obvious and the solutions simple for my own lifestyle to handle... and more and more as I get older I get weirder and more alienated from gaming lol.

 

[Petrae]

Here are the facts.

• Games take much longer to make
• Games require much larger development staff
• Games are much more expensive to make
• The price of games has remained relatively static for the last 25+ years

Microtransactions are a necessary evil, sales are not enough, they have to supplement their games beyond release. It's either that or they need to start charging $100 a game, that's how much games should cost right now with inflation.

Everybody who posts this shit conveniently forgets that video game unit sales have also increased exponentially since the 80s and 90s. Million-sellers are much more common. Publishers are rolling in dough. More units selling than ever before means more revenue taken in to offset these claims of “inflation” and “expensive development costs”.

The decision to turn games into exorbitant and lavish projects came from the industry, too. It’s hard to feel sympathy for an industry that can’t control its own spending. Music licensing. Hollywood actors. Multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Teams of hundreds, to crank out shit like assembly lines because more games mean more revenue! Crank that shit out!

Another problem is that profits aren’t stupidly high enough for everyone. Shareholders want to see more and more, forcing execs to come up with ways to generate more of it. That’s where microtransactions come into play. They’re a source of post-purchase revenue that keeps the coffers filling up after sales of the actual game start to slow down, and have been successful enough that shareholders and execs practically demand them in games now.

It doesn’t matter, though, because between corporate defending fans who cry poor for the industry and stupid consumers who blindly decided to make microtransactions acceptable and normal by buying the fuck out of them... this shit isn’t ever going away. They’re a cancer that will not only remain part of the business model, but will continue to spread and get worse as the need for more and more profit continues to soar. They’re baked into these falsely-assumed “early release” special editions, which actually launch on the actual release date but penalize consumers who don’t want to pay the extra money. They fuel shitty preorder culture, which used to reward consumers with tangible goods instead of worthless digital trinkets. Even if, as corporate defenders keep insisting, base MSRPs finally went up... nobody in their right minds should think that microtransactions will go away.

The good news with the decline of a console generation and the imminent rise of a new one is that, for those who are sick of the bullshit, you can get the fuck out of modern video games by not throwing cash away on new boxes which will empower the same (and probably worse) crap that you’ve come to loathe. It’s a great time, if you’ve had enough and can show some resolve, to tell the industry to go fuck itself and be done with it. At some point, the complaining needs to end and action needs to be taken. It won’t change anything on the business side, but st least you won’t be enabling and feeding what you complain about.

 

[dorkimoe]

As long as its cosmetic or you are just paying to be the highest level fine, but dont give anyone who pays an advantage

 

[LordRaptor]

More units selling than ever before

As a point of fact, there are fewer actual units being sold than even just last gen which is literally why NPD have moved to tracking revenue and not units sold.

But I agree with your conclusion that if you hate AAA videogames so fucking much stop buying them then.

 

[Clear]

I manage to avoid micro-transactions fine myself, so its most definitely possible for them to be a non-factor in anyone's gaming enjoyment.

If everyone did the same, they'd disappear because their existence is predicated on their effectiveness as a revenue stream. More importantly, titles *without* mtx or similar service models would do better, and as a result more would be made.

If you want change, then support things that point in the direction of the future you desire and simply avoid those that don't. Put your money where it matters, that carries far more weight than a thousand angry, outraged postings on the internet. In the end, gaming is a money business and your spending power is your voice. "Silence" is not especially instructive, buying speaks far louder.

 

[Thiagosc777]

If everyone did the same, they'd disappear because their existence is predicated on their effectiveness as a revenue stream. More importantly, titles *without* mtx or similar service models would do better, and as a result more would be made.

They will never disappear. The F2P business model works with only a small fraction of people buying them. I saw somewhere that something like 0.5% of people spending money on those mobile apps are 50% of their business. The total quantity of people who actually buy MTX are in the single digits, like 2% or so.

There will always be whales, people with money who doesn't care about spending extra in those games.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Companies shouldn't be spending so much money on big AAA games unless they're offsetting it with small and mid-sized releases. It would make sense that AAA games have a lower profit margin by percentage but a higher profit in terms of actual dollars.

The market is obviously there for smaller games (indies exist) but many AAA devs are so skittish about competing in that area of the market.

Microtransactions are completely unnecessary to support a modern AAA title. The company needs to cut more fat and make better products, not find ways to milk their existing customers for more cash.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Funny, they can't afford paying overtime for developers who do 100 hour weeks, but they can afford to pay one guy 10 million.

 

[Clear]

They will never disappear. The F2P business model works with only a small fraction of people buying them. I saw somewhere that something like 0.5% of people spending money on those mobile apps are 50% of their business. The total quantity of people who actually buy MTX are in the single digits, like 2% or so.

There will always be whales, people with money who doesn't care about spending extra in those games.

I am 0% of their business. 100% of my spending goes towards product I wish to support. I'm not responsible for anyone else's spending habits, but I take care of my own.

"Whale"-type spending is always going to be around so long as some people have either zero self-control or more spare cash than they know what to do with. So to "fix" that problem we need to both "educate" the world whilst simultaneously removing all the rich people from the equation, its just such an unrealistic goal that it may as well be discarded.

Sorry, but crying out for the powers-that-be to "save us" with regulation is, in my opinion, naive and a hopeless abdication of personal responsibility. Most of all it doesn't argue for a course-correction; you are stemming the floodwaters by blocking the current direction of flow, not knowing where it'll be redirected to. Supporting product that you consider worthy raises the likelihood of that becoming the new main channel. This is how you take control back.

 

[Vawn]

The whole concept that a 100 million dollar game and a 100 thousand dollar game should both be $60 is what needs to go.

I'll pay more for games worth more, but give me the whole game up front.

 

[Erik 3636]

Usually when people criticize microtransactions, there are always those defenders who will claim "the industry needs to make money" or how microtransactions are necessary.

Here I present you with the following evidence:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/act...to-fire-its-cfo-for-an-unspecified-cause.html



He made almost 10 million dollars in one year. Compare it to the budget of a AAA game. How much do they cost? Around 50 million dollars? So he's made a fifth of a AAA budget for himself alone.

Here is the question. Do they need to microtransactions to pay developers and fund new games, or to make the bank accounts of people like him fatter?

The only people who benefit from microtransactions are the higher ups in those companies. Everyone else, gamers and developers alike, don't benefit from it.

EDIT:
Funny, they can't afford paying overtime for developers who do 100 hour weeks, but they can afford to pay one guy 10 million.

They cost usually 100 million dollars

 

[Danjin44]

To me only mobile and free to play games should have microtransactions or loot boxes. I don’t want to see full price games have any of that shit, especially single player games. Simple as that.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

The thing is, we're talking about Activision/Blizzard here. That company is making bank. I don't think that is a fair comparison to other game developers. WoW alone has millions of monthly subscriptions and WoW by itself has tons of cosmetic items, pets, and mounts that you pay real money for. Which doesn't include other games like Overwatch.

 

[Thiagosc777]

I am 0% of their business. 100% of my spending goes towards product I wish to support. I'm not responsible for anyone else's spending habits, but I take care of my own.

"Whale"-type spending is always going to be around so long as some people have either zero self-control or more spare cash than they know what to do with. So to "fix" that problem we need to both "educate" the world whilst simultaneously removing all the rich people from the equation, its just such an unrealistic goal that it may as well be discarded.

Sorry, but crying out for the powers-that-be to "save us" with regulation is, in my opinion, naive and a hopeless abdication of personal responsibility. Most of all it doesn't argue for a course-correction; you are stemming the floodwaters by blocking the current direction of flow, not knowing where it'll be redirected to. Supporting product that you consider worthy raises the likelihood of that becoming the new main channel. This is how you take control back.

Oh the argument "support the games you like...". Well, no shit. Really, we got a genius here guys! What makes you think that we aren't doing that already? We can refuse to buy MTX or games with MTX all we want, the whales are going to make it up for the 60 you didn't spend.

You will never take any control back because it's a matter of numbers. Only 2% already justify its existence. There's no situation, circumstance or condition that's going to change the route microtransactions are taking, except a meteor collision or legislation regulating them.

 

[Clear]

Oh the argument "support the games you like...". Well, no shit. Really, we got a genius here guys! What makes you think that we aren't doing that already? We can refuse to buy MTX or games with MTX all we want, the whales are going to make it up for the 60 you didn't spend.

So its not your problem, but you think you can solve it despite having no skin in the game either as a consumer or provider.... Yeah, sure pal.

You will never take any control back because it's a matter of numbers. Only 2% already justify its existence. There's no situation, circumstance or condition that's going to change the route microtransactions are taking, except a meteor collision or legislation regulating them.

So your answer is to abdicate the responsibility to a "higher authority" not knowing what form that legislation will take and what consequences that might have down the line. Especially as its regulating supply, not demand.

How very "war on drugs" of you.

 

[Zog]

I'll pay more for games worth more, but give me the whole game up front.

What's the difference then? Pay $80 for the game plus DLC or pay $60 for game and $20 for DLC?

You do realize that if they manage to raise the standard price, the microtransactions and DLC will still exist.

 

[sol_bad]

Anyone who feels that microtransactions are needed.

Can you explain how EA were able to tell their shareholders that profit margins had not been affected once GAAS was removed from Battlefront 2?

Can you explain how EA have continued to support Battlefront 2 without GAAS?

Can you explain how No Man's Sky has been able to improve and transform itself without microtransactions or GAAS?

Can you explain how Sea of Thieves gets free updates?

Can you explain why God of War and Spider-Man (open world game) can be so successful without microtransactions and GAAS?

Can you explain why Red Dead Redemption 2 single player was released without GAAS or microtransactions yet it has made so much money?

Can you explain how Diablo 3 could get so much support and content after release without GAAS or microtransactions?


The simple fact is that the majority of games that have GAAS or microtransactions, the content that the fans get in return for for their extra dollars is absolute bullshit. Most content is more bullshit hidden behind more GAAS or that need to be purchased with money to get quicker. It's content that can be designed and created in an afternoon by 2 people.

Season passes? Again, it's content that takes a fraction of time to create in comparison to a full game and not worth the price of admission.

Companies like 2K, Ubisoft, EA and Activision Blizzard who have hundreds or thousands of developers in their employ could easily afford a small team to provide additional support for a released game while the rest work on the newer game/s without GAAS.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

To me only mobile and free to play games should have microtransactions or loot boxes. I don’t want to see full price games have any of that shit, especially single player games. Simple as that.

Definitely agree!

Not too bothered about Multiplayer games too, but as long as it doesn't promote a Pay to Win scheme.

Large Publishers shouldn't be promoting this at all. Can they not follow Nintendo's example? If they can make a good game and not spend huge amounts of money on the Marketing if it has a sizable fanbase already, then they will make more money than adding stupid Microtransactions that probably only recoups the Marketing Cost.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

personally i don't care. i grew up in the 80s, i was used to arcades, where every play was monetized, and games threw one variety of enemies at you in mobs the length of the entire game and it was still enjoyable.

it's the nature of it, you know? every form of mass media has some compromise in it, some built-in concession to it's capitalist roots. entire beloved genres like Metroidvania, can come from the creative difficulties in getting around simple cut and paste to extend the life of a product. MTs have existed in one form or another, in DLC, add-ons, etc., since the start of home computing. i can complain about it, which will accomplish nothing. i can try to make a case "for" or "against" it, as if anybody outside of a corporate board room will ever have any say in the matter. or i can not buy the MTs and vote with my wallet. the latter seems to be the most sensible, easiest approach.

i agree it is obsence that people at the top make so much money, but this is how it is across every stata of society, in every industry, private business, and state politics. in the past it has been much worse, so i think trends are looking good for those of us used to life on the bottom.

 

[Thiagosc777]

personally i don't care. i grew up in the 80s, i was used to arcades, where every play was monetized, and games threw one variety of enemies at you in mobs the length of the entire game and it was still enjoyable.

it's the nature of it, you know? every form of mass media has some compromise in it, some built-in concession to it's capitalist roots. i can complain about it, which will accomplish nothing. i can try to make a case "for" or "against" it, as if anybody outside of a corporate board room will ever have any say in the matter. or i can not buy the MTs and vote with my wallet. the latter seems to be the most sensible, easiest approach.

i agree it is obsence that people at the top make so much money, but this is how it is across every stata of society, in every industry, private business, and state politics. in the past it has been much worse, so i think trends are looking good for those of us used to life on the bottom.

Arcades and MTX aren't even comparable. The arcades still required skill to play, it wasn't pay to win. And you were basically paying to use someone else's machine, like a some type of microrent. In microtransactions you are paying to use your own machine and the game mechanics are altered not to require skill, in which case you might actually beat the game without spending anything if you are good enough, but to bore you into spending money with grind.

Selling crack in front of schools would probably make a lot of money as well, don't you think? It's just capitalism, right? Is it ok? I mean, drug trafficking is one of the biggest industries in the world, right?

 

[DynamiteCop!]

Heres are the facts :

- Microtransactions shouldn't tread along with borderline gambling pattern.
- Microtransactions shouldn't be in a FULL priced game,period, regardless of the inflation. There are other genuine ways to make money other than paywalls/microtransactions. (Eg: CDPR's success had nothing to do with microtrasactions)
- If peopple opt out to defend microtransactions (as seen above), then maybe they should stick to f2p mobile/free games.

• Why? It's effective.
• LOL, CDPR receives funding from the Polish government to build their games
• Money doesn't grow on trees junior

 

[Horsemama1956]

Here are the facts.

• Games take much longer to make
• Games require much larger development staff
• Games are much more expensive to make
• The price of games has remained relatively static for the last 25+ years

Microtransactions are a necessary evil, sales are not enough, they have to supplement their games beyond release. It's either that or they need to start charging $100 a game, that's how much games should cost right now with inflation.

Make more games instead of mediocre interactive movies and barren open world shit. The problem is not that games cost too much and they can't make a profit it's that the profit isn't good enough for a bunch of greedy assholes.

 

[kingwingin]

A successful $60 game today with no dlc shows they were eating way too good back in the day.

 

[Ixiah]

Here are the facts.

• Games take much longer to make
• Games require much larger development staff
• Games are much more expensive to make
• The price of games has remained relatively static for the last 25+ years

Microtransactions are a necessary evil, sales are not enough, they have to supplement their games beyond release. It's either that or they need to start charging $100 a game, that's how much games should cost right now with inflation.

No they bloody dont, its just another way to get more and more Money they can throw into the Maw of the never satisfied Investors.
AAA Games cost 100 Million ?
Then bloody dont make em!
Where are the millions of Consumers that demand another fucking new Madden every bloody Year ?
Most of them would be happy to buy an Roster upgrade for 20 Bucks.
You think games like Hollow Knight, Undertale or other Indie Games arent equal or even more Fun than any fucking AAA Open World Boredom Simulator ?
And you dont have to be a complete Scumbag about Microtransactions like EA or Activision, Warframe made over 100 Million 2017.
Fact is, they want to make big Games so they get a bigger Slice of the Pie.
No one is demanding games with 6 different Version from Normal to Premium to Hyper Ultra Silver Edition that lets you play 2 Days earlier.
FromSoftware makes great games with about 280 Employes.
They. Just. Cant. Never. Get. Enough. Money.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

• Why? It's effective.
• LOL, CDPR receives funding from the Polish government to build their games
• Money doesn't grow on trees junior

What are you talking about dude? They received a grant at the end of 2016, well over a year and a half after Witcher 3 was even released, as part of a research fund that was split along with several other major Polish developers from Poland and what they even got out of the money was only 7 million. This was well after they made every Witcher game and made good money from that series, without the need of the stuff you're defending.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...rom-polish-governments-usd27-4m-research-fund

 

[Bonfires Down]

Selling crack in front of schools would probably make a lot of money as well, don't you think? It's just capitalism, right? Is it ok? I mean, drug trafficking is one of the biggest industries in the world, right?

Don't compare video games to drugs if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[LordRaptor]

Anyone who feels that microtransactions are needed.

Do you actually want answers to this, or is this like going "If actings so fucking hard how come Tom Cruise is so rich and he only ever plays himself in movies?" to pretend exceptions are the norm?

 

[sol_bad]

Do you actually want answers to this, or is this like going "If actings so fucking hard how come Tom Cruise is so rich and he only ever plays himself in movies?" to pretend exceptions are the norm?

Yes please. Go ahead an answer all my questions. If one studio can make large sums of money and support their game without GAAS, all the multibillion dollar corporations can.

*EDIT*
Developers of No Man's Sky are not even a multi billion dollar corporation.

 

[LordRaptor]

If one studio can make large sums of money and support their game without GAAS, all the multibillion dollar corporations can.

No? Are you actually that stupid to believe that?
If you want to see if something is easily done, you don't look at the one example that does it, you look at all the failures that obviously couldn't.
"Oh, Marvel can make a cinematic universe, so everyone must be able to! Git gud Universal Dark Universe and Dc Extended Universe"

Can you explain how EA were able to tell their shareholders that profit margins had not been affected once GAAS was removed from Battlefront 2?

They said it shouldn't substantially effect margins. And it in fact did lead to it hugely underperforming.
So you're asking me to 'explain' how, uh, a thing that happened did in fact happen.

Can you explain how EA have continued to support Battlefront 2 without GAAS?

They haven't. See above.

Can you explain how No Man's Sky has been able to improve and transform itself without microtransactions or GAAS?

I have no idea.
Presumably the hugely overwrought 'Gamer' whining bothered them enough that as a small studio they wanted to regain goodwill.
Which is "good for them". Not "Fuck everyone that isn't prepared to do that".

Can you explain how Sea of Thieves gets free updates?

They're bankrolled by one of the largest companies on the planet and it is a flagship product that would be hugely embarassing to shitcan after their numerous other high profile layoffs and expensive public flops.
Also, as with your next example...

Can you explain why God of War and Spider-Man (open world game) can be so successful without microtransactions and GAAS?

They're bankrolled by the most successful dedicated gaming device, and as a platform holder who takes a 30% cut of every transaction made, they do not ever need to sell a microtransaction themself, because not only is their profitability breakeven point 30% lower than any third party can ever achieve, they fully receive the revenue of one in every 3 microtransactions made on their platform.

Let me break that down for you:
1 in every 3 MTX sold goes into MS / Sony / Nintendos pocket, not the pocket of the person actually selling the MTX.
Its not that big a fucking mystery how the people taking a cut of every MTX sold don't need to sell their own MTX.

Can you explain why Red Dead Redemption 2 single player was released without GAAS or microtransactions yet it has made so much money?

And obviously had a fucking enormous development budget to get to where its at, and sorry, "doesn't yet have the MTX it is going to rely on to recoup its budget" is a weak as fuck argument.

Can you explain how Diablo 3 could get so much support and content after release without GAAS or microtransactions?

"So much" support being very expensive "macrotransactions" to one of the highest selling PC games ever made, prior to its console ports?
If your business plan relies on being one of the highest selling games on a platform - any platform - ever made in order to fund continued development.... good fucking luck with that.

Companies like 2K, Ubisoft, EA and Activision Blizzard who have hundreds or thousands of developers in their employ could easily afford a small team to provide additional support for a released game while the rest work on the newer game/s without GAAS.

So businesses are either your friend or a charity, and because they 'can' afford to do things 'for free' they should do things 'for free', because, why?
What in the history of videogames makes you expect shit for free 'just because'?

 

[Thiagosc777]

https://www.dualshockers.com/activision-blizzards-cfo-15-million-rewards/

Despite all of this though, Activision Blizzard still has enough money lying around to afford to reward its new CFO handsomely for doing, well, kind of nothing. After the departure of Spencer Neumann at the start of the year, Dennis Durkin stepped in to become the new Chief Financial Officer of Activision Blizzard. For taking the position, Durkin was then awarded $15 million worth of rewards to go along with his already $900,000 salary and $1.35 million target bonus.

Meanwhile, they are cutting costs with developers. That's why they need microtransactions, to feed these parasites.

 

[sol_bad]

https://www.dualshockers.com/activision-blizzards-cfo-15-million-rewards/



Meanwhile, they are cutting costs with developers. That's why they need microtransactions, to feed these parasites.

This reply is basically all Lordraptor needs, I was too lazy to reply to each individual retort.

MTX is there to fill the pockets of the top execs. It doesn't go towards to work horses or the game budgets.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

AAA games like Sony's , Microsoft's , Rockstar's or Ubisoft's are a tremendous business risk. Microtransactions are absolutely necessary to keep the industry sustainable and attract investors. Why should they jeopardize their money if there is not a promise of great profits? Only a few AAA games get critical acclaim which translate into good sales figures, many others are struggling or failing to recoup the investment. Cases like GOW, Spiderman, GTA or Halo are the exception. You need something to counter the risks you are assuming with that kind of productions.

 

[Thiagosc777]

AAA games like Sony's , Microsoft's , Rockstar's or Ubisoft's are a tremendous business risk. Microtransactions are absolutely necessary to keep the industry sustainable and attract investors. Why should they jeopardize their money if there is not a promise of great profits? Only a few AAA games get critical acclaim which translate into good sales figures, many others are struggling or failing to recoup the investment. Cases like GOW, Spiderman, GTA or Halo are the exception. You need something to counter the risks you are assuming with that kind of productions.

They are so short of money, they can afford to pay 15 million to one guy. Poor gaming companies.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

They are so short of money, they can afford to pay 15 million to one guy. Poor gaming companies.

Yes, they are rich otherwise the awesome games we got Today would not be possible. Still, investors, the guys who truly run the show, need companies to assure them they are profitable and their money would not better yield somewhere else. Many studios go broke and it's already been said by developers that this model is high risk. We are constantly asking for more innovation and technical advancements like 4K, VR, better framerates, etc. etc. but prices hardly increase. In fact, prices are lower than ever thanks to fierce competition. How is this sustainable from a traditional business perspective?

 

[Thiagosc777]

Yes, they are rich otherwise the awesome games we got Today would not be possible. Still, investors, the guys who truly run the show, need companies to assure them they are profitable and their money would not better yield somewhere else. Many studios go broke and it's already been said by developers that this model is high risk. We are constantly asking for more innovation and technical advancements like 4K, VR, better framerates, etc. etc. but prices hardly increase. In fact, prices are lower than ever thanks to fierce competition. How is this sustainable from a traditional business perspective?

One guy makes the equivalent 1/5 of a AAA budget. That's not sustainable at all, I agree.