Micro-transactions and what it means to you

[Ihoe]

The Question: Lately a trend in the gaming industry, it makes me wonder what all of this means for the consumer or how much they end up paying in the long run.

 

My 2 Cents: When did this change happen where spending the full price for a game only purchased part of the game? (relatively speaking. you could refer to something like car parts, exhausts and sports mods not being shipped with a car, but that's a whole different scenario at core with gaming and it's context. I say to those that say this: a Car ships in full, not missing the gearbox, the backseat, windows or roof.) Sometimes I feel like I’m only buying half of a game. I wish to purchase a completed game, not something that will completed at a later date that I must pay additionally to download.

 

Here's a story:

Linky

Summing up from the above story, cheating in single player games (let's be honest, we all do sometimes) could be considered theft when an amount of real money is linked with a unlimited virtual pile of pixels and polygons considered currency, all of which you have access to on HDD. you're actually paying for nothing.

 

Not to mention the recent group of Incompetent Buffoons who were "inspired" (where's copyright when you need it) from a mod (DayZ) and mugged every poor honest fellow who payed for this Payed-mium program.

 

Here's an interesting post from someone I found on the net:

 

The key trick here is that 99c (or 1.99c or somesuch) is well below the "threshold of sanity". Much like chance purchases in a supermarket - batteries, gum, condoms, you know, the stuff they put on stalls next to the cash registers so you would look at them while you wait and you will most certainly get something. Or your kids will. It's evil like that.

 

The same trick goes for gaming microtransactions. "Well, it's 1 dollar, I ain't gonna miss one dollar, am I?" No, you won't, but seventeen purchases in, you're realizing that you just spent more money on this allegedly free game than you have on many paid-for-play-freely games prior. And that is what the publishers were aiming at. Psychology at work!

 

Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield Play4Free are mild examples of pay-to-win. You CAN theoretically buy the non-nerfy guns with in-game currency. but you have to grind for two months to afford to buy one for more than a day's use. (They do occasionally drop through the free random drop system, though, however rarely - I got a couple that way)

 

Spiral Knights is an example of non-PvP-oriented well-done F2P. You can pay to gain more power, but all it does is help your survivability... and by proxy, your teammates', as it's co-op oriented. IIRC, there is PvP content, but it's tacked on the side and wholly optional.

 

Tribes Ascend and Gotham City Impostors are the ultimate F2P PvP done right. You can unlock EVERYTHING except for some appearance customizations without endless grinding or paying a single cent. The only thing is that in both, paying even once even a little bit permanently gives you a boost to XP and money earning rates, but it's not that significant.

 

It's interesting how many F2P pay-to-win mechanisms Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3 have accumulated over their lifespan in order to suck more money out of the players. Then again, that's EA, their "pure" F2P games money-leech as well, and the publicized conditions for F2P in SWTOR are of the same ilk - playing for free hangs a humongous handicap on you instead of putting fancy bonuses on paying players like NORMAL F2P games do.

 

So what do you think about this trend when applied to our traditional gaming culture old and new gamers? As a consumer, a developer, a spectator, GOD or whatever you are?

[Ghogiel]

The market will teach them. Or not as the case may be. If players keep paying and playing, the developers will keep doing. F2P can be done in many different ways that it is almost unfair to lump them all into the same thing as equals.

 

Anyway the market is highly competitive, there are plenty of decent games in the f2p category that you can play for free and it still be worth while. The fear is if it gets gougey, it might not do so well. But in my experience with this type of content, it's basically pure profit with low dev cost overheads, so devs and publishers will cream their pants over only ~5mil worth of revenue generated in even the first year.

 

That can be a lot of boxes to sell to equal such profits. And there are a lot of suckers and fanboys out there.

 

Some make much more than that on 'micros'. Some companies literally give the whole game away for free with some not P2W restrictions, like limited number of character slots or some type of skip grind that isn't measured in the hundreds of hours, and STILL make good money. Buggy, unfinished beta, warts and all.

 

I've sunk like 30$ into f2ps in my whole life, and none of that was into games where the free player experience felt like a scam. Best thing to do is cut the game out if it's being P2W, the competition will do the rest. I guess I do my part. :P

Edited January 22, 2013 by Ghogiel

[sukeban]

Admittedly, I've never actually played a F2P, but probably the best sense of playing a "Pay to Win" game came with playing Diablo III for a couple of months last year. I've always thought that the business model was inherently sleazy, with the idea that you release a ill-crafted and limited game that you then expect people to pay to restore to playability. It also doesn't help that one of my friends works for a large foreign mobile game company and relates only the most sordid and face-palming antics of his eminently sleazy superiors, as they intentionally craft unplayable-as-freeware games in the hopes that poor saps will (and do!) shell out .99c + .99c + .99c etc. to get them functional. I would like to think that the "market would teach them" but they specifically target un-savvy young "gamers" and non-traditional "gamers" who don't really know better. Plus, these groups usually have discretionary income and .99c seems like not that much to ask for a couple hours of "entertainment."

 

Thus, the equation: "gamers" with low expectations + very low price-points = massive sales for these companies.

 

In some ways I am glad that "gaming" has become more acceptable and mainstream, however, in other ways (games companies changing their business model to tap into this group) I am not. The general quality of games seems to be declining yet the profits for the industry are ever-growing; it does not really take a genius to tell which way the industry will continue to head....

[Ghogiel]

The market does teach them. Though they may not learn what you wanted them to.

 

They might learn 'hey this is neat, gamers are really dumb and will pay for any old s***!'

[sukeban]

The market does teach them. Though they may not learn what you wanted them to.

 

They might learn 'hey this is neat, gamers are really dumb and will pay for any old s***!'

 

Ha, touche and devastatingly accurate!

 

Sort of a different topic, but I do think that games provide a nice example of how default economic assumptions sort of fall down in today's world and its intense media saturation. If people truly were interested in gaining the maximum utility for their dollars they a) likely wouldn't be buying games to begin with (more rational to invest in savings or education) and b) would be seeking the best-made games at the best price rather than those with the biggest hype machine and advertising budgets backing them. Or, more bluntly, they wouldn't buy 60$ of cheap "Free to Play" mobile games that give them a collective 60 hours of entertainment when they could instead buy Skyrim (NOT the best example, I know, but with mods the game [er, engine] has infinite potential) for that same 60$ and instead get hundreds of hours of entertainment. People don't have perfect knowledge of the products they are considering, nor do they make their purchases using a logical rubric; IMO, that's why the gaming industry has been stagnating "appealing to the casual gamer" because, as you say--the market isn't disciplining games makers for churning out low-quality games.

Edited January 26, 2013 by sukeban

[Vagrant0]

a) likely wouldn't be buying games to begin with (more rational to invest in savings or education) and b) would be seeking the best-made games at the best price rather than those with the biggest hype machine and advertising budgets backing them.

Not really. Games, or rather most purchases for non-utilitarian are usually made for the sake of entertainment and to lower stress levels. Entertainment is important since it allows a person's mind a chance to focus on something other than the daily trials of their life, or explore different avenues of thought. In regards to stress relief, a lower stress level can have pronounced benefits towards health, body function, job performance, and concentration as well as a general improvement in personal demeanor. From this standpoint spending a portion of your income on a game, or even a movie, is no different than buying medicine to promote health, or food that tastes good as well as sustains.

 

Value per dollar wise, even a bad game that you only play for a few hours is arguably a better investment than going to see the latest blockbuster movie.

 

As this relates to the value of micro-transactions, if you are enjoying a game for hours, and buying something within that game adds to that enjoyment, then it is a valid investment.

 

 

The problem comes in where aspects of the game become specially tuned in order to make it much more tedious or potentially impossible without those bought extras, forcing players to spend extra money just to continue playing what is marketed as a "free to play" game. Or worse, when those bought extras grant abilities far beyond what is available to other players and grants a marked advantage. In both of these cases the bought extras lead to an imbalance that the company running the game usually isn't too inclined to fix since it generates them more money from that game. There are relatively few game companies who would sacrifice thousands of dollars a month in micro-transactions for the sake of game balance.

 

The other problem comes in when game companies intentionally pull, lock, or limit content in their released games only to sell later to the player for an extra cost. Even if this content is generally unfinished at the time of the game's release, in almost all of these cases the game itself is usually left with significant holes without that DLC. Or it's just cosmetic bits like hats, outfits, extra homes, or other stuff that could have easily been tossed into the main game or given as a free bonus to registered customers... But instead was sold for nearly the price of the game.

 

But, most of the good DLC is content that was made after the game was finished, and is extra to help breathe more life into the game, to keep people playing longer, or bring new people to the game after that DLC was released.

 

a lot of it, at the end of the day really just boils down to how that company balances things around those micro-transactions and how customers perceive those sales. If customers feel that they're getting their value for what they spend, you'll have more sales and more money than if you had boosted the price to try and fit within some sort of projected metric.

[JimboUK]

The problem with stripping too much from the game is people either get fed up with the game and move on or they don't buy it in the first place, that's two groups of people who won't be buying any DLC. Another annoyance is pre-order DLC, they offer a few digital baubles in return for the customer buying the game blind. Personally I'm wary of any game that has tons of pre-order DLC, it looks like the publisher/developer doesn't have confidence in their product.

[Vagrant0]

The problem with stripping too much from the game is people either get fed up with the game and move on or they don't buy it in the first place, that's two groups of people who won't be buying any DLC. Another annoyance is pre-order DLC, they offer a few digital baubles in return for the customer buying the game blind. Personally I'm wary of any game that has tons of pre-order DLC, it looks like the publisher/developer doesn't have confidence in their product.

It may look that way, but in some cases the pre-order DLC probably has more to do with trying to encourage purchase through one vendor or another to not only drive sales (possibly even encouraged by that particular vendor), but also probably get spot data related to what players are ordering through that particular vendor before the game is even released. This data is probably then used for the sake of sales predictions, distribution plans (shipping), and other aspects related to keeping those higher selling vendors stocked. Even in the case of digital distribution, you still have to free up registration keys for products sold through that digital platform. This is also less common now than it used to be a few years ago, so it probably never accomplished its intention beyond just annoying the hell out of players.

 

The thing that makes this different from other DLC though, is that usually these pre-order extras wouldn't have existed to begin with if it wasn't for the sake of driving sales. It is just something quickly tossed together between the point where the game went gold and when the game gets released... Atleast in the better cases.

[ziitch]

Thing is, when you consider it, micro-transactions aren't a new thing. If you go back to the 80s, you've got arcade decks, which often required a quarter for you to play. We can even go back to the days of non-mechanical games in the 1920s and 30s, and even further back with the automatons of the 18th and 19th centuries. Micro-transactions are just an evolution of coin-op; either way you're paying to experience or expand upon your entertainment. if you weren't satisfied with your score or performance, you'd pay another to try again, or continue the game to see how you could get.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that the lessons learned from coin-op can't be applied to micro-transactions. In fact, if done properly, you don't need to offer any fancy extra stuff to get people attached to your game. All you have to remember is who your demographic is, what kind of skills to expect them to have, and how to grab their attention so that they can continue. You see, smartphones are very much, in terms of screen dimensions and interface simplicity, the second coming of coin-op arcade decks of the 80s - But few seem to notice just how much that actually means. What I think it means is that applying the same mechanics that worked for coin-op (with a few modern changes) could also very well easily net you a major amount of money and possibly apply a new (yet old) standard on how to make profits.

 

That's right - Let them pay 25 cents to start off with three lives, and let them pay an additional .25 (and all their points) so they can continue their game. In fact, this is something that much of the casual gamer demographic grew up with, and could very easily accept in order to play a game. But not so fast - let's modernize it a bit...

 

• First play is always free play. The first time someone sees your game, let them try it out for free. Give them three lives and an engaging introduction that they can quickly familiarize themselves with the setting and mechanics, and they'll want to pay 25 cents once all their lives are exhausted. Did they win the game within the free run? That's pretty amazing and it's okay - Prompt them that they can do a harder second run (and keep their score) if they want if they pay 25 cents, or they can outright buy the game and enjoy it without paying in quarters.
  
• Make a pay limit. Sometimes skill doesn't pay off for some people, and it's a good idea to recognize that. Once they pay enough quarters, it's best to inform them that they bought the game and no longer have to pay. Of course, that might make some people recognize how bad their skills are, (or how their phone is at gaming, or how much they depend on micro-transactions,) but nonetheless you're not emptying out their wallet.
  
• Add a donate button. I think this is something that is often missed and made into a taboo. So they paid $5 (all at once or in quarters) for your game, but is that all that they want to pay? Maybe some people want to pay more. Letting them choose to pay how much over the price as a donation would expand upon the decisions of just how much they value the game compared to how you value it.
  
• Add an uninstall button. Some people aren't going to like your game once their free play is done. No need to let it waste space on their SD cards; let them easily uninstall it as soon as they've lost their last man. You've demonstrated, and if it didn't catch them, well, they just aren't your demographic and there's no need to change the game to their liking - Which is very much a lesson the big companies themselves need to learn.
  

 

So... where was I? Oh yeah... Smartphones are the all-in-one consolidation of game arcades back in the 80s. Micro-transactions reflect that in a way. But a modified coin-op system that targets their familiarity towards arcade systems could very well quickly rise as an alternate form of app purchasing.

 

...And if this post sounds more like a blog entry rather than a insight towards the debate, it's because I've had this mechanic on my mind for the last few weeks and I've wanted to discuss it somewhere fitting. I've considered making a Gamasutra blog and then post this idea on there. (and require credit if someone does want to try this idea. :biggrin: )

Edited January 27, 2013 by ziitch

[Ihoe]

Thing is, when you consider it, micro-transactions aren't a new thing. If you go back to the 80s, you've got arcade decks, which often required a quarter for you to play. We can even go back to the days of non-mechanical games in the 1920s and 30s, and even further back with the automatons of the 18th and 19th centuries. Micro-transactions are just an evolution of coin-op; either way you're paying to experience or expand upon your entertainment. if you weren't satisfied with your score or performance, you'd pay another to try again, or continue the game to see how you could get.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean that the lessons learned from coin-op can't be applied to micro-transactions. In fact, if done properly, you don't need to offer any fancy extra stuff to get people attached to your game. All you have to remember is who your demographic is, what kind of skills to expect them to have, and how to grab their attention so that they can continue. You see, smartphones are very much, in terms of screen dimensions and interface simplicity, the second coming of coin-op arcade decks of the 80s - But few seem to notice just how much that actually means. What I think it means is that applying the same mechanics that worked for coin-op (with a few modern changes) could also very well easily net you a major amount of money and possibly apply a new (yet old) standard on how to make profits.

 

That's right - Let them pay 25 cents to start off with three lives, and let them pay an additional .25 (and all their points) so they can continue their game. In fact, this is something that much of the casual gamer demographic grew up with, and could very easily accept in order to play a game. But not so fast - let's modernize it a bit...

 

• First play is always free play. The first time someone sees your game, let them try it out for free. Give them three lives and an engaging introduction that they can quickly familiarize themselves with the setting and mechanics, and they'll want to pay 25 cents once all their lives are exhausted. Did they win the game within the free run? That's pretty amazing and it's okay - Prompt them that they can do a harder second run (and keep their score) if they want if they pay 25 cents, or they can outright buy the game and enjoy it without paying in quarters.
  
• Make a pay limit. Sometimes skill doesn't pay off for some people, and it's a good idea to recognize that. Once they pay enough quarters, it's best to inform them that they bought the game and no longer have to pay. Of course, that might make some people recognize how bad their skills are, (or how their phone is at gaming, or how much they depend on micro-transactions,) but nonetheless you're not emptying out their wallet.
  
• Add a donate button. I think this is something that is often missed and made into a taboo. So they paid $5 (all at once or in quarters) for your game, but is that all that they want to pay? Maybe some people want to pay more. Letting them choose to pay how much over the price as a donation would expand upon the decisions of just how much they value the game compared to how you value it.
  
• Add an uninstall button. Some people aren't going to like your game once their free play is done. No need to let it waste space on their SD cards; let them easily uninstall it as soon as they've lost their last man. You've demonstrated, and if it didn't catch them, well, they just aren't your demographic and there's no need to change the game to their liking - Which is very much a lesson the big companies themselves need to learn.
  

 

So... where was I? Oh yeah... Smartphones are the all-in-one consolidation of game arcades back in the 80s. Micro-transactions reflect that in a way. But a modified coin-op system that targets their familiarity towards arcade systems could very well quickly rise as an alternate form of app purchasing.

 

...And if this post sounds more like a blog entry rather than a insight towards the debate, it's because I've had this mechanic on my mind for the last few weeks and I've wanted to discuss it somewhere fitting. I've considered making a Gamasutra blog and then post this idea on there. (and require credit if someone does want to try this idea. :biggrin: )

 

you're Absolutely right. Although what you wrote might be just one form of sucking money out of suckers (Gamers :D), my problem is with how these trends are crawling to the already-paid-more-than-enough-60-damn-bucks Group of games. Why should we pay 69.99$ for game and pay an additional fee to access a part of the game that should naturally, according to our logic, be included in the game? (you have to pay X.99$ to access this part of your ship in Mass Eff...) it's absolutely annoying.