Activision made $4 billion US in 2017 in micro-transactions

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Activision gets all the money, EA gets all the hate

Makes sense kappa

To be fair most of the money is likely from blizzard which is either cosmetic items which I am totally fine with or hearthstone packs and dlc which I am also fine with seeing as the game is free to play.

[Eroda]

10 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

While the massive hate on EA on micro-transactions happened in StarWars Battlefront 2 (by the way EA brought micro-transactions back to the game while no one noticed),

they are back in the game like NOW? or they still planning on bringing them back

[dizmo]

5 hours ago, Majestic said:

 

Are you saying Loot boxes and micro-transactions haven't completely taken the joy out of AAA games? Who the hell are you to tell people who are sad to see their hobby fall prey to corporate greed that they are "bitching" and "sticking their head in the sand". 

 

Especially when you follow it up with this "argument". $150-180. Based on what. Even assuming for a second the market was willing to pay this number for a game, in a hypothetical scenario (because they fucking wont), how would this prevent developers and publishers from not making the kind of business decisions that are now driving costs up? It would only enable them to hire more overhead and invest in more pretty graphics engines, with even larger useless sandboxes. Instead of focusing on reducing overhead and condensing the gameplay into a faster paced, enjoyable experience. Creating games that make "some money" instead of "all the money". Smaller games that are more finetuned towards specific gamers instead of appealing with every game to everyone, and making a boring jack-of-all-trades mess. 

 

I think the people that have built the gaming industry with their love and dedication to the platform have every right to be mad at the normies who ruined it, with their gambling-addicted minds that just can't stop craving that dopamine high every time they pay those micro-transactions. 

If they're properly implemented? No. Not at all. Granted there are companies that have done it erroneously, but other companies (Over watch, CS:GO for example) are perfectly fine. Or Hearthstone. Or GTA with its Shark cards. 

 

The $150+ (I think in Canadian, so about $120 to $140 USD) price was taking into account DLC being included as well. Which is additional game content. If you factor in 2 or 3 DLC packs the price really isn't out of the ballpark. Again, not all DLC is the same, but that was assuming quality content. Games can be expensive to make (obviously not all are, AAA titles are different once you factor in marketing etc), and companies want to see profit. Surprise! It's a business! Who would have thought right?? People are willing to pay more for games if it's well done, and something that seems interesting. Star Citizen for example. You can buy in low, but loads of people are buying multiple ships or higher tier packages. That price was based on replacing micro transactions and loot boxes. 

 

Devs have said that the best way to get your point across is to still buy the game, but to not purchase the loot boxes/micro transactions. That simply not buying the game can lead to more implementation of loot boxes etc to make up the lost revenue. I don't see that working either, as the conversion rate is ridiculously low; it takes something like 2% for a game to have those micro-transactions and loot boxes make financial sense. Something you have to factor in is a potential flop. If a game doesn't do well, you have to make up that money. Putting a game out is a huge risk (for most companies), 

On top of that, Devs are usually in it for the love of the industry, like you said. I'm order for a company to expand, they have to profit, not break even, and have contingency funds for when a game inevitably isn't a huge seller. Some Devs believe that games should actually be lower in cost than $60 (unit sales vs cost) but that just increases the burden of success and the potential for failure sky rockets. It showcases the difference between a business person who understands risk vs reward and someone who does it because it's their passion. You really can't have one without the other. 

 

In the end, while the publishers are a huge part of the problem, you cannot negate the fact that the REAL reason they do it are the people who buy into said systems, and as long as they do the rest is rather moot.

 

I've always found it odd that people complain about the price of games. PC gaming, as a hobby, is really very affordable. An increase in AAA game cost, even to $90USD, and it'd still be very affordable.  

[dizmo]

44 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

To be fair most of the money is likely from blizzard which is either cosmetic items which I am totally fine with or hearthstone packs and dlc which I am also fine with seeing as the game is free to play.

Ah, yes. About 1/4 actually for Hearthstone. Unless it's counted as a mobile game by the article; hard to say since it's on both platforms. It's interesting, Hearthstone is the epitome of pay to win, yet it still does quite well. 

[IceCold008]

Lots of idiots about willing to throw away there money on nice pixels. 

[DarkBlade2117]

10 hours ago, Damascus said:

Raise the cost of games to what they should be, more like $100 and ditch dlc.

I don't even pay $60 for games , fuck paying $100. I'd not be touching a AAA game that wasnt least 60% off and Id refuse to pay for any SP game that didn't offer well over 100 hours of game play for that $100.

[GoodBytes]

45 minutes ago, Eroda said:

they are back in the game like NOW? or they still planning on bringing them back

Oh sorry. I miss recalled. It was said in January "in the next few months".

Will correct my post.

[paddy-stone]

11 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

i need more hands

 

That bothers me... the 4th hand looks like a woman's, LOL

 

[Doobeedoo]

You really need to question peoples mentality regardless od their wallets.. Fueling company for such a trivial addition for the game, business wise for them it's a success, but it really can put gameplay it self on second place. Specially if it's not a f2p game too. 

Just talking in general. Not any specific game now. But like seriously in many games I've seen like buying numerous packs for X amount is literally robbery. So much cash for nothing. With all that "it's not meant for people to get everything" it's quite lame. 

But yeah, seems very inevitable new games not to include MTs and or LBs regardless if game is f2p or not. People will continue fueling that practice and companies will focus on that. 

 

I miss the old way of unlocking stuff in game, by actually doing something, grind, achievement, collect, etc. No shop. 

[Apepa]

I don't really care if other people want to waste their money on crappy add-ons that are priced disproportionately to the base price of the game. 

 

What annoys me is having to interact with the stupid boxes at all. Since I'm never going to spend any real world money on them, I'd much rather just get the random earned unlocks without having to deal with stupid in-game currency.

[Damascus]

1 hour ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

I don't even pay $60 for games , fuck paying $100. I'd not be touching a AAA game that wasnt least 60% off and Id refuse to pay for any SP game that didn't offer well over 100 hours of game play for that $100.

I never pay full price on the first round, I bought my all time favourite game RoR for $2.50 (usually $10) but I later spent an extra $20 on the sound track because I wanted to support them.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

Quote

the publisher revealed that it made $7.16 billion in revenue in the entire fiscal year, a record for the company.

Of that, $4 billion was generated by in-game purchases.

No amount of pitchfork will undo what you support with your wallet...

 

10 hours ago, Majestic said:

Are you saying Loot boxes and micro-transactions haven't completely taken the joy out of AAA games? Who the hell are you to tell people who are sad to see their hobby fall prey to corporate greed that they are "bitching" and "sticking their head in the sand". 

Well, apparently they haven't, judging by the figures.

If someone is willing to pay for a game with microtransactions, and then spend money on those microtransactions, that person must be having quite a bit of joy with those games. Or (s)he's plain stupid, in which case we are idiots too for not banking on their stupidity  

 

10 hours ago, Majestic said:

 

Especially when you follow it up with this "argument". $150-180. Based on what.

I agree, these guesstimates of what a game "should cost" are hard to take at face value.

10 hours ago, Majestic said:

how would this prevent developers and publishers from not making the kind of business decisions that are now driving costs up?

It's not really about the cost, but about revenue. It doesn't matter how much (or how little) a game costs to develop, if there is an additional way to make money out of it then it will be used. The only thing that would prevent it would be a significant "commoditization" of games such that entry of new developers keep the margins over costs tight. We don't seem to be remotely close to that, so for the foreseeable future every revenue-making strategy is here to stay. Thinking that costs are pushing these decisions is like thinking that movies have merchandising only because they became more expensive to make. If there was a way to cut the cost of a Star Wars movie to 1/10 of what it currently is, they would still sell toys of every frieking robot they show for 2 seconds (and robots will be given 2 seconds to justify the merch), because it still provides additional revenue out of the same movie.

 

10 hours ago, Majestic said:

I think the people that have built the gaming industry with their love and dedication to the platform have every right to be mad at the normies who ruined it

I find too much bigotry and too little sense in such elitist comments.

[Ithanul]

On 2/10/2018 at 6:22 AM, Sniperfox47 said:

How popular has Clash of Clans gotten? Would any serious gamer say it's an amazing game? Even a good game? It's play to win, MTX riddled, and consists of a dick measuring tool backed by your wallet size. Even still, it's crazy popular. Would you call someone a "gamer" just because they play Clash or Farmville?

Funny you bring up CoC, I played that big time several months back.  Never dropped money into it and I would rape the crap out of the whales for giggles. 

 

Plus, the whole "Gamer" crap can go burn in the pit along with "PCMR".  Considering by what most calling themselves "Gamer" think that the standard should be, would pretty much null a good amount of the early games back from the Atari era or heck, even arcade machines.   There even older gamers that think the new lot are not gamers either.  Pretty much the community is a bunch of sub groups crying around that they are so called true "gamers".  Truthfully, all are gamers considering woo di f ing do, they all play video games (just now there is a wide range of platforms to play on).

[Trik'Stari]

On 2/10/2018 at 6:22 AM, Sniperfox47 said:

End of the day, saying "Gamers don't mind" because a lot of people bought them is misleading. Not everyone who plays games is a "Gamer", just as not everyone who's ever told the tiniest fib is a "Liar".

 

Anybody who legitimately cares about the future of the gaming industry should be appalled at the MTX push. It should be a slap in the face.

 

The average person who plays games is not a "gamer". They're not a part of the community that built gaming, or wants gaming to flourish. Sorry to sound hipster, but gaming has reached that point where it's so mainstream that the average user just doesn't gaf.

 

How popular has Clash of Clans gotten? Would any serious gamer say it's an amazing game? Even a good game? It's play to win, MTX riddled, and consists of a dick measuring tool backed by your wallet size. Even still, it's crazy popular. Would you call someone a "gamer" just because they play Clash or Farmville?

 

It's interesting to see the Indie community where games devs were 15-20 years ago. Coming out with free content packs (How many were there for UT99?) and huge paid content expansions (Starcraft: Broodwar anyone? Tiberium Sun: Firestorm? Diablo: Hellfire?). I hope these indie games can build into a new strong industry for gamers, I just hope it doesn't go down the same road mainstream gaming has.

Most downloaded game on the Switch is Stardew Valley.

 

I'd call that a better game than something like PubG or Overwatch to be honest.

[Cole5]

Another reason Activision  is trash, maybe once loot boxes are dead we can work on murdering MT's in full priced games too, if you want to be a FTP dev be a FTP dev 

[Sniperfox47]

57 minutes ago, Ithanul said:

Funny you bring up CoC, I played that big time several months back.  Never dropped money into it and I would rape the crap out of the whales for giggles. 

 

Plus, the whole "Gamer" crap can go burn in the pit along with "PCMR".  Considering by what most calling themselves "Gamer" think that the standard should be, would pretty much null a good amount of the early games back from the Atari era or heck, even arcade machines.   There even older gamers that think the new lot are not gamers either.  Pretty much the community is a bunch of sub groups crying around that they are so called true "gamers".  Truthfully, all are gamers considering woo di f ing do, they all play video games (just now there is a wide range of platforms to play on).

Thank you for missing my entire point My point was never people who play clash of clans inherently aren't gamers, just that the majority of people who do aren't.

 

"Gamer" is a label for a community that doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who play those kinds of games. They don't identify as gamers, don't engage with the community, and for the vast majority they don't play with a serious dedication to the games. The "whales" in clash of clans that you mentioned are a minuscule portion of the playerbase. Most of Clash is casual  players who play a few minutes here and there when they have nothing else to do. The game is purposefully set up to milk the dedicated part of the playerbase, the "addicts", but those players aren't representitive of the community either.

[79wjd]

On 2/10/2018 at 12:22 AM, Damascus said:

Raise the cost of games to what they should be, more like $100 and ditch dlc.

Or just let microtransactions be a thing. Many times I'd rather have the base game with none of the extra DLC and simply save the money.

[Damascus]

23 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Or just let microtransactions be a thing. Many times I'd rather have the base game with none of the extra DLC and simply save the money.

Until the taken king comes out and suddenly every top tier weapon is behind a pay wall.

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Or just let microtransactions be a thing. Many times I'd rather have the base game with none of the extra DLC and simply save the money.

So long as the base game doesn't shrink to make DLC more appealing.

[79wjd]

20 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Until the taken king comes out and suddenly every top tier weapon is behind a pay wall.

Pay to win is always bad, but extra content behind a paywall is still fine -- don't make me subsidize the cost of the DLC for every one else.

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So long as the base game doesn't shrink to make DLC more appealing.

The game still has to not be pay to win and it has to be a realistic amount of content -- e.g. a four hour campaign isnt okay for a AAA title.

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Pay to win is always bad, but extra content behind a paywall is still fine -- don't make me subsidize the cost of the DLC for every one else.

With Taken King content that was previously in the game was put behind the paywall.

[Damascus]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

Pay to win is always bad, but extra content behind a paywall is still fine -- don't make me subsidize the cost of the DLC for every one else.

It wasn't extra content, the dlc raised the level cap for those who bought it and wouldn't you know, using the best and most interesting (exotic tier) gear requires you to be max level.

 

I had several pieces of highly versatile, interesting weapons and armor but couldn't use any of it after the dlc.  Ruined the game for me when I couldn't use any of the items I had earned (and used) before the dlc.

[GoodBytes]

So far, only Nintendo seems to be doing DLC right. Where DLC is actually an extension pack of decent to good value (depending on what you value)

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

With Taken King content that was previously in the game was put behind the paywall.

 

4 hours ago, Damascus said:

It wasn't extra content, the dlc raised the level cap for those who bought it and wouldn't you know, using the best and most interesting (exotic tier) gear requires you to be max level.

 

I had several pieces of highly versatile, interesting weapons and armor but couldn't use any of it after the dlc.  Ruined the game for me when I couldn't use any of the items I had earned (and used) before the dlc.

Key word in DJdwosk97 post was "extra" content.  not original content.    Which means if the content was already in the game it is not DLC. 

 

What you are describing is a company that sold you a game, then took some of the original content away unless you paid even more to use it.  That is not DLC,  that is just shit practice at best and illegal in many countries.

 

 

[RotoCoreOne]

The thing about whales is that you can only hunt them for so long before they become extinct.