Micro Transactions - Yay, Nay, or HEY!
polycounter lvl 18
The GT HD post got me thinking. What can we expect to see from Micro Transactions? Apparently, Sony thinks we will pay for the right.. to be able to buy their game, one nearly identical car after another.
GunBound had a pretty good idea with micro transactions, gameplay is free, but if you want a funky hat, you have to pay up.
Obviously, this method has worked well for them.
Oblivion's Horse Armor, didn't work out very well, but apparently, Thieves Den... did. Its all about the value your purchase provides.
The idea of purchasing the cars and tracks you want, is a good one, as long as you don't have to buy the stand-a-lone game as well.
Really, what I want to see, is new game play. New characters, new moves, and entirely new scenarios, not just a different assortment of crates and doors.
Several downloads for Halo 2 had an initial cost, but then were made free to the general public. Pay to play NOW, if you will. That seemed to work for that "Moderately" Sucessful game.
What do you want for your $5, $10 or $15? How much do you value, your value?
GunBound had a pretty good idea with micro transactions, gameplay is free, but if you want a funky hat, you have to pay up.
Obviously, this method has worked well for them.
Oblivion's Horse Armor, didn't work out very well, but apparently, Thieves Den... did. Its all about the value your purchase provides.
The idea of purchasing the cars and tracks you want, is a good one, as long as you don't have to buy the stand-a-lone game as well.
Really, what I want to see, is new game play. New characters, new moves, and entirely new scenarios, not just a different assortment of crates and doors.
Several downloads for Halo 2 had an initial cost, but then were made free to the general public. Pay to play NOW, if you will. That seemed to work for that "Moderately" Sucessful game.
What do you want for your $5, $10 or $15? How much do you value, your value?
Replies
as i said in gt thread, play free demo, it asks you if you want tplay next level for $5 you say yes, it downloads and takes five dollars off your account, like a pay as you go phone card setup, you could go to a local shop and add another $10 or do it over phone. sensible and safe.
- How much $$$ is the base game?
- How much $$$ are the items?
- Are these add-ons needed to play the game?
For Oblivion, people complained about the horse armour because of it's price. It simply wasn't worth the $6-7 or whatever, that they were charging for it. If a game requires you to micro-purchase all content (ala GT HD) then the base game needs to be dirt-farken-cheap. Like $5 or so. If you have to pay $1 a car, that's still $300 if you want all 300 cars....
It's really all about the various factors, and how they affect people. You need to find the sweetspot.
Ding the customer with a "next gen price tag" of $60.00 for an incomplete game then charge them for content that was left out of the game (not extra content) or patches paraded around as new content.
I see it being abused and exploited more than I see it being useful to the end customer.
- the example about GRAW was you get the full game on CD and then if you will, you can get some extra stuff for it, like a small expansion pack t; that is great imo, new stuff to play on your favourite games, could almost avoid lame sequels just to add one more weapon and a map...
- now the idea of paying for an incomplete game and pay for more stuff is scary. And as Vig said, i won't be surprised if this new strategy is heavly abused.
Also as someone noted on the other thread, how will this affect multiplayer gaming?
Some multiplayer/MMO type games will definately be affected by this. "click here NOW to go up to the next level! Just 2$!"
I agree with the naysayers on microtransactions, sounds nice but will most likely end in features being cut from the release version to be sold for a few bucks a piece later on.
Why throw this bullshit into the mix? I don't want a game to nickle and dime me, I want the whole game, and if the creators want to release a few bonuses, they can find other means than to add a small extra charge.
Why throw this bullshit into the mix? I don't want a game to nickle and dime me, I want the whole game, and if the creators want to release a few bonuses, they can find other means than to add a small extra charge.
[/ QUOTE ]
By $50 worth of game + content then. What's the problem? I think it's a grand idea. It's like being able to choose the cable channels you want, rather than signing up for packages that force you to pay for Lifetime when you only watch Comedy Central.
and yeah i agree that if you buy the game it has everything, and some extra content can be acessed by micro purchases then that might work...it already does in online games.
I do not think that its ok to sell spells and weapons. Something like that should be part of a package like a new area.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can the profit motive really be considered a "good intention"
Game development costs have gone up insane amounts and you're still paying the same price for the product; doesn't make much sense from a business perspective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and no. It really depends on what developer your talking to. Some ideas I heard developers give at the other end (lowering costs).In example is more streamlined productions and especially pre productions to have the content and requirements more concrete. So less money and time is spent with reworking asset or code as the design changes. Of course one could argue this can create less organic games and more static. Another is not having to achieve hyper realism versus focusing on gameplay itself and making a simpler rendering engine with a more unique artisitic look.
As for the topic at hand. I really depends on the genre. If its a level or a item you need to complete a game.. no. If its just cool assests and bonuses.. Sure. I still prefer this over ads as it wont lead to more intrusive gameplay (if the above is followed).
And? Movies cost much more to make yet you can buy the DVD for a lot less. Paying more for a product doesn't mean the manufacturer makes more money in the end. The higher the price the fewer units you sell. The goal is to find the price point where the number of units sold multiplied by the profit per sale is maximized. That's also why pricedrops are made, to reach the parts of the market that aren't willing to pay the initial price while still making as much as possible from those who are. I really doubt that 60$/70€ is the optimum pricepoint for games.
This sort of transaction (hawken correct me if I'm wrong) is the normal in the Japanese market.
I'm down with buying content for my game thats sold within cheap brackets. Sure, why the hell not? The game still have to be a title I'd enjoy. I've never been a fan of Gran Turismo games so I won't be giving this project any of my money. But that's not to say I think the idea is bad.
Sell me the game in small content brackets for at a cheaper price for the next, oh I don't know, NOLF*. I'd be all for it.
*Just an example. Relax.
Unforunately, developers have to deal with this thing known as a Publisher. Publishers invest a lot of money in the games they produce, so obviously they want a return on their investment, and why invest in something that isn't a sure thing. The publisher is essentially Funding, Marketing, and distributing the product. This would be better handled by other companies, let the publisher get the game into wal-mart.
Soon as alternate revenue streams and funding models are in place, you will probably see more AAA games selling for lower prices.
as far as Micropayments are conscerned.. I would pay $20 to play as Mike Haggar in Dead Rising.
Just a note..
Apparently one of the reasons this isnt working so well in NA is the way credit card companies in NA handle credit card processing and fees. If small purchases are made the processing fees take a big chunk of the profit.
Unforunately, developers have to deal with this thing known as a Publisher. Publishers invest a lot of money in the games they produce, so obviously they want a return on their investment, and why invest in something that isn't a sure thing. The publisher is essentially Funding, Marketing, and distributing the product. This would be better handled by other companies, let the publisher get the game into wal-mart.
But if 40$ is the optimum price they make LESS money selling at 50 or 60$. Wouldn't the publisher want as much money made as possible? Or do publishers forego hiring managers with even minimal business training?
$39.99 is the optimum price for games. Just ask CliffyB.
Unforunately, developers have to deal with this thing known as a Publisher. Publishers invest a lot of money in the games they produce, so obviously they want a return on their investment, and why invest in something that isn't a sure thing. The publisher is essentially Funding, Marketing, and distributing the product. This would be better handled by other companies, let the publisher get the game into wal-mart.
But if 40$ is the optimum price they make LESS money selling at 50 or 60$. Wouldn't the publisher want as much money made as possible? Or do publishers forego hiring managers with even minimal business training?
[/ QUOTE ]
Different games have different optimum prices. The way publishing works right now is that publishers try to make every game into a major blockbuster. If a game is a blockbuster, it's going to sell a lot of copies regardless of a $10-20 price boost. Therefore, by raising prices on blockbusters the publisher can make more money on those titles.
What's not working so well for the industry is that most games are not major blockbusters. By raising the price of games and forcing people to invest large amounts of money in them, all of the titles which aren't "must have" purchases lose sales.
But because the publishers have only seen profits from blockbusters so far, those are the only games they care about. Therefore they only focus on making sure that those games make money.
Get the cycle?
1)Publishers see that blockbusters make money.
2)Publishers create conditions under which only blockbusters can make money.
3)Publishers see that other titles are not making money but don't notice that it's their own fault.
4)Publishers see that blockbusters make money.
- Micro transactions are not "micro" if they are over $5. The whole point of a micro transaction is to extract small amounts of money. There are economic/psychological reasons why micro transactions should be around 99 cents, so that is probably what you'll see. This will make the added content small items that cost little to produce. I think there will still be a market for $15 expansion packs, but that is a totally different issue.
-Some games will use micro transactions as a way to shortcut time investment in MMO style games, but that will create a market for other games where this is not possible. Games that do allow for this type of shortcut will become dominated by gamers who like to "cheat" and by stupid people because; cheaters don't agree that it is how you play the game that matters, and stupid people will be unable (to a higher degree than others) to keep track of their micro transactions and so will underestimate the amount they have spent.
-Some games, like Second Life, already turn a profit of real money by taking small amounts from in-game transactions (made with game currency "exchanged" with real currency) . This will probably become even more popular. This is because there is no real difference between making it so you can buy in game content which your character can resell and making it so ytou can buy game currency directly. This is one road of micro transactions which is well understood because it is exacly like existing forms of currency exchange.
-The other road that micro transactions will take will be based on one of the main advantages for digital content providers. In real life sellers are limited by what they can charge individuals because they are forced mostly to charge everyone the same price. You see, one person may be willing to pay as much as $10 for a Big Mac, and another person only $3. This means Mcdonald's has to set one price for everyone that will sell the most hambugers, but what if they knew exactly how much you were willing to pay and charged you that amount? By preventing arbitrage (sale of items) between players, content providers will be able to figure how much you can pay and charge you that amount. This could probably be done by making you pay more for each item depending on how many you have already bought and passed off as a anti-powergamer gameplay mechanic.
Maybe this is why we have only seen it for MMO so far, because that type of game needs a connected server to be useful. Taking it into games with single player elements...
I guess you could say at that point in the future it wont matter. However, there is something to be said about being able to access something you bought, no matter how old. When you buy a chess set, do you have an expiration date on the pieces? It also would be like loosing cultural game heritage.
Unless they got bought out by EA.
[/ QUOTE ]
GO WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP YOUNG MAN!
Imagine they had a setup where you could buy unique items that had identical gameplay function (each one gives you character +5 strength, so example), and they price them at different levels. Poor people with a lot of time (like kids) will only buy the cheapest one, but rich people with little spare time would buy them all no problem.
This would have the exact same effect of charging people more, the more they buy, which if you think in terms of paying with your time, it is how RPG games have always worked. You "pay" for level 1 with 1 hour of work, but for level 2 with 3 hours of work, etc...
I do think that is the most controvertial thought I had on the subject so far. I am interested to see what actually happens.