LootGate - The Great Loot Crate/Microtransaction Debate

iwb100

Nah. If every game abandoned AAA principles and polish then the market would be saturated in average looking games and everyone would moan.

You want your high production value AAAs. They are massive for the industry.

People either need to accept something like optional MTXs or loot boxes. Or pay more for the base game. Or some other model to make up the revenue for publishers and devs.

Toasty

Companies should be making games that sell well, a quality, well promoted game will. What's missing from this conversation is the fact that Micro transactions are designed to milk money from people who already bought the game, they are irrelevant to anyone not buying the game. If the game sold to more people, that £50 price tag nets the company a lot more cash.

Comparing with other media, one film may have a budget of £100million, a smaller film £5million, they are both at the cinema for £10 and success is measured on whether the ticket sales exceed the production budget. Both cases can turn profit and loss depending on a lot of factors, but generally how well the film is received.

The micro transaction models for me are showing a worrying trend toward changing how the base game is made specifically to generate cash from early adopters, if they can get X amount of people into their pay systems and keep throwing loot at them, maybe they don't need to worry about bigger sales numbers. This is the free 2 play model, but with a £50 entry fee.

In all other media, extra content is offered to fans, but it doesn't change the original experience, but in gaming, micro transactions are being associated with easing 'grind', 'chance' of new characters, gaining an 'advantage' over others right from the moment you've installed the game. Do we want more grind, more luck, more imbalance in the core mechanics of future games?

SteakAndCake

**** No!

iwb100

We're being undercharged for games though. They're cheaper now than they were 20 years ago for god sake. Yet the cost of making them is infinitely higher.

Its clear that the industry isn't sustainable on current models. Let us not ignore the reports of how horribly many development companies treat their staff, the crunch, the relatively low pay, the "threats" if anyone complains. The industry is not a particularly pleasant place. Probably because the squeeze is worst at the bottom.

Either way pay more for our games or they find other ways to increase revenue. Making games is not a charity and generally relies on investor capital for projects to even start. We have to start to realise the realities of making games and also the realities of the market.

You can't have this discussion from a single "I'm a gamer, I demand this" point of view. You're a consumer and if you don't like the product you don't buy it. Market forces will dictate what is acceptable or not.

My worry is tarnishing all MTXs and loot boxes as "bad" means other things will take their place that will be worse!

SteakAndCake

Yep,  remember in 1992, Street Fighter 2 for the SNES was something like £90 back then.  AAA games are too cheap now.   The question is, do gamers want £100 AAA games with super shiny graphics or would they rather have £50 games with graphics that looks like they did 3 years ago?

iwb100

I want £50 with super shiny graphics. If to do that they have to include MTXs and loot crates then I'm fine with that. That is far better than either of your options.

Also the cost generally isn't the "graphics" its the cut scenes, story writing, voice acting, production etc etc....

You can probably make loads of cheaper games. Generally MP only are cheaper to make as you need far less production. PUBG a great example. A brilliant game by a small studio. But if that sort of game was the ONLY option then I think that would kill the industry.

SteakAndCake

er, why?  it's the most played game with a playerbase eclipsing all AAA multiplayer combined.

EA would kill for a game with those sales figures, retained player, and tiny costs.

Toasty

At no point am I advocating not making extra from games with extra content, its the changing of core mechanics to target people who will tolerate pay to skip / buff systems that has brought about these headlines and quite correctly. EA have pushed things too far recently and this is the market reacting, it will hopefully balance out in a positive way.

The games industry is no different to any other and no other media industry is asking the consumers to fork out big increases in product prices to enjoy the base product. If a film that cost £100 million to make flops, the film industry moves on and adjusts its thinking.

If games production costs are as bad as you say, how can there be such a spread in prices and models already? From £2 mini games to £80  deluxe AAA editions and everything in between. The reason is each studio knows what they're creating and how to make money from it. If the big companies with big production costs are shifting focus from chasing high sales figures to cannibalising existing sales, then the core gameplay is going to suffer in the long run.


Indeed, create a good game, create sales, make money..

iwb100

Its selling well because its unique. If everyone tries to make games like that you dilute the market. If everyone says "ok scrap single player its cheaper to make MP games we can release as early access and build on" how many of those can the market sustain?

You're being too simplistic. The answer is to carry on doing what they are doing. If the market won't sustain microtransactions they can try a different model.

But gamers need to be less reactionary and far more specific in their complaints.

iwb100

Because you can't compare small single figure indie developed games to SWBF2.

Production costs are going up. That is a fact. They have been for 20 years. But game prices haven't. If we want a healthy industry we need models where that gap is covered. Because remember those investing in games development want returns and those returns need to be competitive or they'll invest elsewhere and bang...no games.

I'm saying do gamers want EVERYONE to pay or do they want those that choose to buy optional MTXs to foot the bill?

I agree that BF2 was a poor, poor progression system that was compounded by its reliance on loot crates. But the issue should be about progression and making that right rather than MTXs and loot crates becoming universally a "problem". Its a little like Daily Mail rhetoric right now. The subtleties of the issue are ignored and instead systems that have been fine in many games for a while will be tarnished. And if it gets to the point where devs won't risk including them for fear of a backlash, something will replace them. Mark my words. And I suspect that something is likely to be far, far worse for all gamers, not just a few who decide to spend their own money of their own accord.