Support NeoGAF

[JohnnyFootball]

I’m OK with games that have microtransactions and they’re truly not needed but are there for lazy people. Assassins Creed Odyssey is an example.

I am not OK with them when the non-F2P game has obvious gameplay decisions made for the sole purpose of pushing gamers toward using them.

 

[klosos]

Let's be honest , its pure and simply greed. This large publishers could sell there game and overall make a nice 100 mil -200 mil profit but thats not good enough. Executives and money man want to squeeze every last bit of profit they can out of the customer.

Look at struas Zelnik at 2k , when he said 2k and Rockstar never monetized GTA 5 to its maximum , for gods sake that game made multiple billions in profit. We has gamers / Consumers are seen as cash cows no more , its why i always find it hilarious with console / PC fan boys warring over a bit of plastic from a company that don't care about you in the first place.

also gamers have to take some responsibility in this as well, gamers have accepted to much in the last few years , i will hear excuses like " am still buy Shadow of War / Assassins creed origins but i wont buy single player Micro transctions " all you have told Ubisoft and WB in this instance is that you will accept it in you single player games , iMO the right response would be to boycott them games in the first place.

Remember you are the consumer -your Wallet - Your Rules , that game you want to play today in 3 months time will be second hand at a third of the price. start putting your foot down before its to late.

 

[sol_bad]

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.

Pleeeeeeease!
Explain how the industry survived between 1985 and 2010 then? The audience was much smaller back then, risk was just as high. But developers like ID and Epic still offered free content for their game.

EVERY game is a risk, indie games are a risk too, they fail they lose everything. But you don't see them shoving in MTX.

 

[GreatGreen]

Won't somebody please think of these poor, risk taking video game companies that can afford to hand out $15 million dollar signing bonuses.

They NEED those microtransactions and in-game advertisements to feed their starving families!

 

[gamerEMdoc]

I'd prefer games to raise their price tag and get rid of microtransactions and DLC altogether. However, I my realistic fear is we'll get $80-100 dollar games for a little while free of these practices and then pretty soon these practices will return in those expensive games.

 

[IncognitoPanda]

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.

This is such poor reasoning. Microtransactions are fair game, as long as they're legal, but there are plenty of different things going on behind the scene.

First of all, have you played a AAA game recently? Have you looked at the stats? They're cluttered to the brim with content that btw, only 1% of people ever get to play. Take AC: Odyssey. It's FULL of content in addition to require grinding. What is their solution to make back their huge budget? They make grinding tedious, and then sell you an EXP boost pack for real money, so you don't have to play as much game. That is instead of spending cutting down on content that not even 1% of the buyers will ever experience.

You think God of War struggles financially? 240 people worked for 5 years, then released a game without microtransactions or DLC. Yeah , they won GOTY an sold 10 million, but Rise of the Tomb Raider sold 7 million and still underperformed! My point is, I believe they can easily cut down on bloat and drop MTs, but Mts is where the money is at, so why would they?

 

[LordRaptor]

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

Again;
Why are you pretending it is an EITHER / OR situation?
As I already said - they need to charge what they do to make executives and shareholders money AND to continue to make the games at the scope and level of polish that people are accustomed to.

If investos do not get enough of a return on investment to make their investment worthwhile, they will not invest in the first place.
If nobody is investing in making videogames, where does the money to make videogames come from?

 

[Thiagosc777]

If nobody is investing in making videogames, where does the money to make videogames come from?

From the people who bought the games.

 

[bronxct1]

I think you're failing to realize that they didn't just hand Neumann 10 million dollars. Most of that money is tied to performance targets for the company and options that vest over a number of years. Same with Activision's new CFO, a majority of that money is tied to stock incentives. Getting someone competent in those roles requires that type of compensation package its just reality.

 

[JCK75]

I feel like how acceptable a practice it is should be based on the big picture.
Your game is free to play, you give items to people slowly over time but sell the ability to unlock them faster hoping this funds your game going forward.. I find this to be not only acceptable but quite good.
Your game was $60 and you decided to keep milking people by charging them for content that should have been in the game, in this case you're a filthy whore.

 

[Thiagosc777]

I think you're failing to realize that they didn't just hand Neumann 10 million dollars. Most of that money is tied to performance targets for the company and options that vest over a number of years. Same with Activision's new CFO, a majority of that money is tied to stock incentives. Getting someone competent in those roles requires that type of compensation package its just reality.

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

 

[bronxct1]

Ok, you need to actually read the compensation package then if you're just going to keep quoting the total amount.

His base salary was $850,000 in 2017 so with yearly increases it's probably close to 1 million. The majority of those "Awards" are tied to performance-based compensation. If they miss the target he does not get awarded that stock. He has to hit those targets over the life of his employment contract that runs through 2020 to max out the package. He received that money because the targets were hit. Which means the company is growing.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Ok, you need to actually read the compensation package then if you're just going to keep quoting the total amount.

His base salary was $850,000 in 2017. The majority of those "Awards" are tied to performance-based compensation. If they miss the target he does not get awarded that stock. He has to hit those targets over the life of his employment contract that runs through 2020 to max out the package. He received that money because the targets were hit. Which means the company is growing.

How he does it is not the point. The point is, he got 10 million in one year as in his bank account is 10 million fatter.

 

[bronxct1]

How he does it is not the point. The point is, he got 10 million in one year as in his bank account is 10 million fatter.

Right, and he got poached by Netflix for what is probably a bigger payday. There is no way for Activision Blizzard to avoid paying someone at the C-Level the market rate. Concentrating on that point is an exercise in futility.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Right, and he got poached by Netflix for what is probably a bigger payday. There is no way for Activision Blizzard to avoid paying someone at the C-Level the market rate. Concentrating on that point is an exercise in futility.

It's an exercise in comparing how those companies treat their developers, they are cutting costs and claiming that game development costs are too high, while paying millions to executives. That shows where the microtransaction money is going.

The more microtransaction, the richer the executives. Developers will continue working 100 hours without overtime and the games will continue the same only with more MTX.

 

[LordRaptor]

From the people who bought the games.

How do you pay people with money to make a game before that game has been made, and there has been no money made from sales whatsoever, Marty McFly?

 

[Thiagosc777]

How do you pay people with money to make a game before that game has been made, and there has been no money made from sales whatsoever, Marty McFly?

Are you this dense?

Those companies have been around for decades. They have multiple games and other revenue streams (such as merch, etc). Blizzard even made a Warcraft movie. They aren't start-ups who need investor money to get off the ground.

THEY ALREADY GOT THE MONEY!

That's the money they use to reinvest and increase their business. That's how any privately owned business works, by the way.

 

[LordRaptor]

Are you this dense?

Those companies have been around for decades. They have multiple games and other revenue streams (such as merch, etc). Blizzard even made a Warcraft movie. They aren't start-ups who need investor money to get off the ground.

THEY ALREADY GOT THE MONEY!

That's the money they use to reinvest and increase their business. That's how any privately owned business works, by the way.

Are YOU this dense?
If you want to make a game, you go to someone who has money and say "I need $150 million over the next 5 years to make this game I am now going to describe to you"
They in return will say "And how much money am I going to get back on that?" Because they can NOT give that money away and leave it in a bank and earn money just from doing that.

So the money that game has to make, has to be enough to make it worth their while to give that money out in the first place.

Do you know what businesses don't do?
They don't say "Fuck it, I've got some cash in the bank, have it all. If it makes cash, cool, otherwise, no biggy, I'll get some more cash from somewhere else probably"

 

[Thiagosc777]

Are YOU this dense?
If you want to make a game, you go to someone who has money and say "I need $150 million over the next 5 years to make this game I am now going to describe to you"
They in return will say "And how much money am I going to get back on that?" Because they can NOT give that money away and leave it in a bank and earn money just from doing that.

So the money that game has to make, has to be enough to make it worth their while to give that money out in the first place.

Do you know what businesses don't do?
They don't say "Fuck it, I've got some cash in the bank, have it all. If it makes cash, cool, otherwise, no biggy, I'll get some more cash from somewhere else probably"

Funny, apparently private businesses don't exist then according to you.

 

[LordRaptor]

Funny, apparently private businesses don't exist then according to you.

I literally don't understand how you think business works.

Here is an example of a private business in the videogame sector, who - literally hours ago - has announced they are going to have to close because they could not secure investment in continuing to develop upcoming titles,a nd are giving away the demos they were using to try and secure funding on itch.io



If companies don;t get investment when they need it, they do not make products.
Investors do not invest in products that they do not anticipate a return on that is worth their investment in the first place.

This really is not brain science.

 

[Thiagosc777]

I literally don't understand how you think business works.

Here is an example of a private business in the videogame sector, who - literally hours ago - has announced they are going to have to close because they could not secure investment in continuing to develop upcoming titles,a nd are giving away the demos they were using to try and secure funding on itch.io



If companies don;t get investment when they need it, they do not make products.
Investors do not invest in products that they do not anticipate a return on that is worth their investment in the first place.

This really is not brain science.

That's a tech start-up. That's what you do when you are starting up a business in tech. You get funds to fund your development. Once you are up and running you have revenue streams you can use, among other things, to pay your employees and fund new projects and grow it.

That's where Blizzard is. They have been around for decades and have multiple successful franchises they milk to this day.

Again, they already got the money. Any MTX is just increasing the bonuses for the executives.

 

[LordRaptor]

Thats not "a startup" its a company that could not secure funding for its next project. There are fucking hundreds of examples in the videogame space.

Let me try and break this down to ELI5 as I possibly can, and if you still don;t get it, then there's literally no point in trying to hammer this home, I just pray that you are never in charge of any business for your hypothetical employees sake.

You have a job, and you have money.
You want to create... fuck, I don't know, a film.
It will take you 5 years to make it.

Now, you can take whatever savings and assets you currently have, convert them all into cash, and use that to fund you for the next 5 years.
And if at the end of that 5 years your film isn't successful, congratu-fucking-lations, you're now homeless and bankrupt. Welcome to Business.

Or you can try and find investors for that film.
If you can't find any investors, congratu-fucking-lations, that film is not going to be made. Welcome to Business.

So to try and find those investors and make that film in the first place, you need to offer someone terms that are good enough that they are going to risk their money to make that film in the first place.
And if they have money to invest, they are going to want a really good return on that investment, because there are plenty of other things they could invest in and make money quicker than waiting 5 years to see if your film is any good or not. Welcome to Business.

 

[LucidFeuer]

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

Okay I was about to create a topic: We need to talk about hidden-PR who roams forums on official, Steam and general VG websites to manipulate and twist rationalisation in order to try defend the undefendable.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Thats not "a startup" its a company that could not secure funding for its next project. There are fucking hundreds of examples in the videogame space.

Let me try and break this down to ELI5 as I possibly can, and if you still don;t get it, then there's literally no point in trying to hammer this home, I just pray that you are never in charge of any business for your hypothetical employees sake.

You have a job, and you have money.
You want to create... fuck, I don't know, a film.
It will take you 5 years to make it.

Now, you can take whatever savings and assets you currently have, convert them all into cash, and use that to fund you for the next 5 years.
And if at the end of that 5 years your film isn't successful, congratu-fucking-lations, you're now homeless and bankrupt. Welcome to Business.

Or you can try and find investors for that film.
If you can't find any investors, congratu-fucking-lations, that film is not going to be made. Welcome to Business.

So to try and find those investors and make that film in the first place, you need to offer someone terms that are good enough that they are going to risk their money to make that film in the first place.
And if they have money to invest, they are going to want a really good return on that investment, because there are plenty of other things they could invest in and make money quicker than waiting 5 years to see if your film is any good or not. Welcome to Business.

You are making no sense whatsoever. None of what you said contradicts what I said and you seem to misunderstand how businesses work. And we have derailed the topic already. If you want to discuss businesses, then please create a new thread.

 

[LordRaptor]

You are making no sense whatsoever. None of what you said contradicts what I said and you seem to misunderstand how businesses work. And we have derailed the topic already. If you want to discuss businesses, then please create a new thread.

Your claim that post-release monetisation is "unnecessary" and that it only goes to executive bonuses and has zero impact on funding a game in the first place is an outright lie.
These are things that fund games AND ALSO give investors returns on their investment.
BOTH THINGS ARE TRUE.

I literally do not understand why you can't see that it is not a zero sum game. Paying industry standard bonuses to executives doesn't happen instead of making a new game, It happens as well.

 

[MP!]

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.

some triple A games cost way more than 50 million to make...
try 100-200 million