Support NeoGAF

[Matt]

Except the flaw in your calculation is that not all of those games publisher's released last gen even made money. Many in fact didn't.

The consolidation has not just brought less games but a greater proportion of more successful games, since publishers will only invest in surer bets.

The reality is, games haven't increased to $100 at retail, and yet publishers have been seeing continued YoY growth in profits for as long as this generation has lasted so far, with more games than ever reaching mega-hit status.

The recent increased adoption of MTs and other monetization methods will only further inflate publisher profit growth, indicating that this isn't an issue of "necessity" in further monetizing blockbuster AAA games, rather "opportunity".

Overall development costs have more than doubled, and many games released this gen don’t make money.

AAA games do generally need additional monetization, that’s a basic fact at this point. How that monetization is achieved, on the other hand, is what’s worth debating.

Loot boxes are gross and predatory, but incredibly profitable. We need better DLC and less disruptive alternatives.

 

[inner-G]

I'd love for all those who defended the mobile games / f2p model to come out and defend its now obvious deleterious effects on gaming at this point.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Ah yes, the sound of bullshit.

When GT7 goes free to play, your analogy will work

 

[LordRaptor]

Loot boxes are gross and predatory, but incredibly profitable. We need better DLC and less disruptive alternatives.

I disagree with that assessment, because loot boxes (of the cosmetic kind);
- are most engaged with by the people who most use the product, unlike raising base MSRP
- do not offer any suggestion of 'pay 2 win' (unless somebody really fucked up and did something like give a certain skin a smaller hitbox), unlike most traditional dlc weapons etc
- do not fragment a community between haves and have nots, unlike things like map packs
- allow for GaaS titles that continue being updated, instead of the usual annual franchise buy the game again cycle that trashes all the dlc you bought last year

Given how many benefits players that never even engage with the system get in return, and how publishers are happy removing a price ceiling from the people that play their games most, I'm surprised at the amount of hate they get.

 

[thumb]

I disagree with that assessment, because loot boxes (of the cosmetic kind);
- are most engaged with by the people who most use the product, unlike raising base MSRP
- do not offer any suggestion of 'pay 2 win' (unless somebody really fucked up and did something like give a certain skin a smaller hitbox), unlike most traditional dlc weapons etc
- do not fragment a community between haves and have nots, unlike things like map packs
- allow for GaaS titles that continue being updated, instead of the usual annual franchise buy the game again cycle that trashes all the dlc you bought last year

Given how many benefits players that never even engage with the system get in return, and how publishers are happy removing a price ceiling from the people that play their games most, I'm surprised at the amount of hate they get.

Loot boxes can contain almost any game reward. Their existence incentivizes publishers and developers to slowly move more game rewards into them to monetize a larger portion of the player base. And because of a lack of regulation in most countries, devs do not need to reveal the actual drop rates of particular items.

The continuing existence of loot boxes in a franchise also incentivizes developers to make earning loot boxes through normal gameplay as annoying or time consuming as possible. If revenue from loot boxes is flat or down, that says they haven't turned up the heat enough to convert more non-paying players.

You should see that this is not a world that will benefit game design.

 

[LordRaptor]

Loot boxes can contain almost any game reward. Their existence incentivizes publishers and developers to slowly move more game rewards into them to monetize a larger portion of the player base. And because of a lack of regulation in most countries, devs do not need to reveal the actual drop rates of particular items.

The continuing existence of loot boxes in a franchise also incentivizes developers to make earning loot boxes through normal gameplay as annoying or time consuming as possible. If revenue from loot boxes is flat or down, that says they haven't turned up the heat enough to convert more non-paying players.

You should see that this is not a world that will benefit game design.

That percentile 'drop rates' are exposed, and that 'drop rates' are not secretly modified would be welcome changes to the lootcrate paradigm, but those are assurances for people who are happy with such a system in the first place, not evidence against it.

The rate at which you earn lootcrates is somewhat moot, because you're not playing the game to earn lootcrates - you are playing the game because you enjoy the game, and additional 'prestige' / 'bragging rights' rewards are value adds on top of that, not the reason to play in the first place.
If you do find that the only reason you are playing a game is to 'grind' non-transferable unlocks, you should probably just stop playing that game.

For the 'slippery slope' argument that "fine its cosmetics now, but what if its the only way to obtain core gameplay functionality later - like weapons, or maps, or new characters?", the counterppint to that is the same for every slippery slope "but what if they do?" argument - "but what if they don't?"

 

[Pokemaniac]

I disagree with that assessment, because loot boxes (of the cosmetic kind);
- are most engaged with by the people who most use the product, unlike raising base MSRP
- do not offer any suggestion of 'pay 2 win' (unless somebody really fucked up and did something like give a certain skin a smaller hitbox), unlike most traditional dlc weapons etc
- do not fragment a community between haves and have nots, unlike things like map packs
- allow for GaaS titles that continue being updated, instead of the usual annual franchise buy the game again cycle that trashes all the dlc you bought last year

Given how many benefits players that never even engage with the system get in return, and how publishers are happy removing a price ceiling from the people that play their games most, I'm surprised at the amount of hate they get.

Lootboxes are horrible in any incarnation, because 1) they prey on addiction to make money, and 2) they have a tendency to cause the destruction of progression systems to encourage people to buy them.

 

[GobFather]

I think he missed a few points, but the sentiment is the same. The one thing that really got to me was how car progression has been gated and just how egregious they are with the changes to the game's economy. There are a lot of things from previous Forza games that Turn 10 decided to change and or remove entirely from the game just to make their prize packs. Want that awesome car and have the credits for it? Too bad you've not collected enough cars to level up your collection to get the opportunity to buy that car. But if you use those credits on a lucky prize pack you might have the opportunity to get it. So what will it be, you either take a chance or you wait and continue to spend more time in the games loop. There is no winning with this game, even the driver levels have car unlocks that don't give you the cars but rather give you discounts. It's little changes like that which have made me so sour, and that's before I even get into the VIP stuff.

That doesn’t sound fun :/

 

[NullPointer]

Lootboxes are horrible in any incarnation, because 1) they prey on addiction to make money, and 2) they have a tendency to cause the destruction of progression systems to encourage people to buy them.

At bare minimum they are anti-Quality-of-Life features put into games.

"Gee, I sure wish the developers would patch the game to make this thing I like to experiment with into a consumable" -- said nobody ever.

 

[Saty]

Game design and functionality were already impacted..

I told you guys when Overwatch gated speech lines and sprays behind random lootboxes. Any game that has lootboxes and the ability to pay real money for them = game design insidiously impacted to push people to spend said real money. Doesn't matter the nature of the content. If i were a reviewer included in MC, i would score 3\10 every game that does this.

Nothing's preventing having random boxes AND the ability to selectively purchase any item. Except the sheer greed, exploitation of players and corruption of game design so clearly evident by devs and pubs choosing not to.

 

[Neuromancer]

How do we all feel about the Horse Armour in Oblivion now?

I never minded it. It was a little silly but at least you paid your money and got the thing you wanted. Now with loot boxes you pay your money in the hopes of getting the thing you wanted, which is way worse.

 

[Papo Swing]

Software as a service.

It's the future for all software no changing it now.

Get ahead of it by making real suggestions, can't see the video so not sure if it is only a take it all away or an implement.

 

[leeh]

Like season passes, special editions and DLC?



The article reads like "we wanted to sell this IP to MS to make money, and here is the reason we're going to tell you why".



No shit Sherlock, most games that sell well do make a profit. What did Gears of War 4 sell for MS? Like 3m+ copies or something? Then there is DLC earnings, marketing/brand deals and whatever else.

That's pretty much a PR fluff piece of "estimates" "coulds" and "like every game we need to try and make a profit". Hardly unwavering evidence that a $60 product is completely unsustainable for Forza. Which I showed above Forza is not simply a $60 product anyway.

LordRaptor works in game development as far as I know and now Matt is saying the same.

What do you propose then?

 

[Audioboxer]

LordRaptor works in game development as far as I know and now Matt is saying the same.

What do you propose then?

Well, they could say where they work, if it's indie or AAA. Most indie devs don't seem to be hustling us for season passes, 5 pre-order editions, lots of MTs and loot boxes. If they're in AAA I can understand them being a bit more defensive. Corporate culture though, defend your brand and employer at all costs.

I suggest what we already have which is what brings in multi-million, or in MS' case contributes towards billions in profit. Some special editions are fine, just please don't do retailer specific nonsense. Season passes can be silly for gamers to pre-order, as you have no idea what you're buying, but they're okay. In principle, they often offer a "cheaper" way to buy all a games DLC than getting it individually. Just don't pre-order them. Speaking of DLC... well, DLC. Lots of gamers will buy additional content which is cheaper for you to make at around 40~50% of the whole product price (DLC tends to amount to $20~40 in pricing). Outside of actual content, some cosmetic DLC is fine too, most of us just criticise games that are cosmetic in nature getting completely nerfed to serve up paid content. You can't really blame old-school gamers who've been used to obtaining all their cosmetic goods in an actual game, not storefronts or loot boxes.

Destiny 1, for example, made a fucking killing in revenue, and a sequel has been pushed out within years reusing a bit of the old assets/work, but this time Bungie/Activision are switching cosmetics to favour loot boxes. I'm sorry, but that is in no way needed in Destiny 2, when it still has all the special editions and a season pass.

 

[thumb]

The rate at which you earn lootcrates is somewhat moot, because you're not playing the game to earn lootcrates - you are playing the game because you enjoy the game, and additional 'prestige' / 'bragging rights' rewards are value adds on top of that, not the reason to play in the first place.
If you do find that the only reason you are playing a game is to 'grind' non-transferable unlocks, you should probably just stop playing that game.

This is a strange argument. In-game rewards exist to motivate and reward player behavior. They serve no other function. They are one component of what makes playing a game fun from a psychological perspective. You make them sound like trifles, rather than the carrots that are used to guide player behavior.

For the 'slippery slope' argument that "fine its cosmetics now, but what if its the only way to obtain core gameplay functionality later...

It's already impacting design with Forza. VIP was once permanent, now it's consumable, to motivate more purchases. This is not a hypothetical world we are talking about, it is happening slowly around us. Also "core gameplay functionality" is your words, not mine. I was talking about putting more in-game rewards in boxes, which is happening and will likely continue to happen.

 

[LordRaptor]

LordRaptor works in game development as far as I know

I don't believe I've ever said so, and for the purposes of any discussion I engage in I'd rather you assume that I do not, and anything I say is based on either common knowledge or on things that can be easily checked or verified with a google search.
I definitely am not making - nor do I believe ever have made - any claims to 'insider' status, and my words should carry no more weight than literally any other poster here has, because whats being said is always more important than who is saying it.

 

[Nick_C]

I disagree with that assessment, because loot boxes (of the cosmetic kind);
- are most engaged with by the people who most use the product, unlike raising base MSRP
- do not offer any suggestion of 'pay 2 win' (unless somebody really fucked up and did something like give a certain skin a smaller hitbox), unlike most traditional dlc weapons etc
- do not fragment a community between haves and have nots, unlike things like map packs
- allow for GaaS titles that continue being updated, instead of the usual annual franchise buy the game again cycle that trashes all the dlc you bought last year

Given how many benefits players that never even engage with the system get in return, and how publishers are happy removing a price ceiling from the people that play their games most, I'm surprised at the amount of hate they get.

- I'm going to need some citations on that one. One of the most often used reasons for in-game currency and loot crates in AAA games is to allow players the choice of dedicating time to the product of using real world money to bypass the grind. Most recently with Shadow of War.

- Traditioanlly, yes, cosmetics offer no tangible advantage unless they start messing with hitboxes. One could argue that camo could pose a tactical advantage or certain colors can be a detriment to how well a colorblind person can assess a given situation, but that will drag this discussion into the weeds.

- To bring this back to your first point, you state that the players most engaged with a product will spend more money on the product. If a player is not invested enough to buy the maps why would it matter?

- Except you're in a thread discussing a franchise that has been annual since 2011. One that also stripped out a staple of the franchise since its 2005 debut to stuff it into loot boxes.

And to address your final point on why people aren't more accepting of these types of things, I think it goes to show that the devs/pubs aren't the only ones that would prey upon the "whales." You're basically saying, "let them pay more and everyone else can take advantage of the free shit."

That percentile 'drop rates' are exposed, and that 'drop rates' are not secretly modified would be welcome changes to the lootcrate paradigm, but those are assurances for people who are happy with such a system in the first place, not evidence against it.

The rate at which you earn lootcrates is somewhat moot, because you're not playing the game to earn lootcrates - you are playing the game because you enjoy the game, and additional 'prestige' / 'bragging rights' rewards are value adds on top of that, not the reason to play in the first place.
If you do find that the only reason you are playing a game is to 'grind' non-transferable unlocks, you should probably just stop playing that game.

For the 'slippery slope' argument that "fine its cosmetics now, but what if its the only way to obtain core gameplay functionality later - like weapons, or maps, or new characters?", the counterppint to that is the same for every slippery slope "but what if they do?" argument - "but what if they don't?"

The core gameplay attracts the player. After the veneer rubs off it's the bar filling and reward system that keeps the playing.

As for your second point, "but what if they already did?" As stated earlier, game mechanics that have been a staple of the Forza franchise since inception have been relegated to a loot box system.

At bare minimum they are anti-Quality-of-Life features put into games.

"Gee, I sure wish the developers would patch the game to make this thing I like to experiment with into a consumable" -- said nobody ever.

Nothing I hate more than feeling like someone is actively wasting my time to find out where my breaking point is.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Oh it’s clearly not.

I knew the answer, I was just pointing out that people keep swearing out Turn10. You think they *prefer* to set up their game this way? It's their publisher demanding GaaS games with long revenue tails for whales. They (unfortunately) don't care if the reception is less than stellar or if they sell less units of software up front, because they are banking on making a continued buck from people instead. It sucks, but it's certainly not Turn10s issue is what I was getting at

 

[irrotational]

I don't like loot boxes because it's basically just unregulated gambling. Just offer the items for a set price and then people can buy the thing they want rather than sinking in tons of cash in the hopes of getting one.

I also think taking out the CR bonus for the difficulty modifiers and replacing it with one time consumable "mods" is super shitty. It's a direct example of a key feature being taken away to service loot boxes.

 

[LordRaptor]

- I'm going to need some citations on that one. One of the most often used reasons for in-game currency and loot crates in AAA games is to allow players the choice of dedicating time to the product of using real world money to bypass the grind. Most recently with Shadow of War.

- To bring this back to your first point, you state that the players most engaged with a product will spend more money on the product. If a player is not invested enough to buy the maps why would it matter?

Someone who - say - plays a game once a week with their friends can easily be in a position where their friends who play more often than they do find value in buying a mappack that they don't, and then get locked out of playlists.
I mean... are selling maps piecemeal generally considered better than lootboxes funding maps for everyone? News to me.

The people who care about cosmetics being the people who most actively engage with a title I can't cite a study for, because... its common sense? If you only play occasionally, are you that bothered if you dont own every skin for every car?
You'll get that one skin you want for that one character you do play, and you're basically sated.

And to address your final point on why people aren't more accepting of these types of things, I think it goes to show that the devs/pubs aren't the only ones that would prey upon the "whales." You're basically saying, "let them pay more and everyone else can take advantage of the free shit."

Well... yes.
Different people have different value thresholds and people really invested in a game are prepared to put more into that game, whether thats time or money or both.
Like... I could very easily pirate a shitload of games, but I choose not to because fundamentally, nobody paying anything leads to games not being made anymore.
Or I could wait 6 months and buy everything deep discounted, instead of day one. Or buy everything second hand. Or from shady key reseller sites. Or any other of a spectrum of consumer behaviours that I'm sure publishers would really prefer I don't engage in as it directly affects their bottom line.

Something like TF2 I've spent way more than sticker price on (when it even had a sticker price), but I have correspondingly spent way more playtime on it than most other FPS titles put together.
If RTCW:ET got a steam release with a nominal fee, I would straight up pay that fee for the conveience of steamworks integration, even though the original game is legit free.
I've double (and triple) dipped on titles for both format shifting reasons, and also to support that developer.

I mean, I'm on GAF, I can't believe I'm the only one here who has similarly gone 'above and beyond' as a fan of a title or series in supporting it. I'm not even rich.
There are people out there that will drop $1000 on a game because $1000 ain't shit to them and they want to get their clanmates matching skins or whatever.

I mean... yeah, lifes unfair, some people have more than they need and some people don't get what they want, AAA videogames isn't the place I expect to solve that

This is a strange argument. In-game rewards exist to motivate and reward player behavior. They serve no other function. They are one component of what makes playing a game fun from a psychological perspective. You make them sound like trifles, rather than the carrots that are used to guide player behavior.

The core gameplay attracts the player. After the veneer rubs off it's the bar filling and reward system that keeps the playing..

You guys play games for vastly different reasons than I do then.
If I am not having fun playing a game, I will stop playing it.
It doesn't matter how close to an achievement / prestige level / next crate drop / whatever extrinsic motivator you choose is lingering there if I force myself to do something I am not enjoying any more.

Like... why do that to yourself? Then get angry at the product because you're doing that?

 

[NullPointer]

You guys play games for vastly different reasons than I do then.
If I am not having fun playing a game, I will stop playing it.
It doesn't matter how close to an achievement / prestige level / next crate drop / whatever extrinsic motivator you choose is lingering there if I force myself to do something I am not enjoying any more.

This is exactly how I approach games too. "Farming" is about as dirty a word as there is in my book. I play for kicks, and if I accumulate goodies in the process, great. Progression might get me to play one type of activity rather than another, but if that activity is fun in its own right, that gentle nudge is fine in my book, and similar to trying to unlock a trophy or achievement that sounds interesting.

But even then, what still gets my goat is when I've shelled out full price for a game (or more, or even far more) and yet it continues to try and upsell me at every opportunity, including finding new ways to push me into the game's digital storefront as part of the base gameplay loop. Maybe I've just got a low tolerance for that kind of thing, but it drives me up the wall.

I'll happily open my wallet to spend on games - but man if so many publisher ideas make me feel like I'm being exploited or pressured through annoyances to do so, and so the wallet stays closed and those games get avoided.

 

[TeddyShardik]

Do casinos have an expensive entry fee upfront?

Seems they are leaving money on the table if they don't.

 

[thumb]

You guys play games for vastly different reasons than I do then.

If I am not having fun playing a game, I will stop playing it.

It doesn't matter how close to an achievement / prestige level / next crate drop / whatever extrinsic motivator you choose is lingering there if I force myself to do something I am not enjoying any more.

Like... why do that to yourself? Then get angry at the product because you're doing that?

My argument is not the same as Nick_C's. What I am saying is that part of what makes a game "fun* is its schedule of rewards, and that rewards are used to encourage certain types of gameplay and behavior by the player. A consistent drip of dompamine from "success" in a game is delivered, in part, from these rewards. You seem to be treating games as separable from their rewards, rather than acknowledging that rewards play a critical role in how player behavior is directed. Rewards are part of how games are designed, they are not some epiphenomenon.

You comments about not playing when you are not having fun strike me as too glib. Many players find themselves frustrated and even infuriated by aspects of games that seem monotonous or difficult. They can even find themselves stuck for hours. They would not describe themselves as "having fun" at those times. But they do not stop upon encountering these moments because they anticipate something rewarding at the end of the dark tunnel: a new level, new equipment, new cosmetics, what have you. A return to the mechanics, gameplay, or reward schedule they had previously encountered.

So what happens when that same psychology of temporary setbacks and frustration is used to try to motivate purchases? In your case, you don't care. But many people find the idea that their frustration can be relieved by shelling out more cash inherently grating and unpleasant, even if they don't pay. Especially after they have shelled out a non-trivial sum already. Not to mention that it gives publishers and developers direct monetary incentives to go as far as they can in pushing people to that state. And many of us do not want our favorite games to go down this path.

 

[Nick_C]

Someone who - say - plays a game once a week with their friends can easily be in a position where their friends who play more often than they do find value in buying a mappack that they don't, and then get locked out of playlists.
I mean... are selling maps piecemeal generally considered better than lootboxes funding maps for everyone? News to me.

The people who care about cosmetics being the people who most actively engage with a title I can't cite a study for, because... its common sense? If you only play occasionally, are you that bothered if you dont own every skin for every car?
You'll get that one skin you want for that one character you do play, and you're basically sated.

It's a good thing those devs/pubs are thinking about that person that's only invested enough in their game to pay the cover charge, and leaves it up to the "whales" to pay for all of their "free" content.

Well... yes.
Different people have different value thresholds and people really invested in a game are prepared to put more into that game, whether thats time or money or both.
Like... I could very easily pirate a shitload of games, but I choose not to because fundamentally, nobody paying anything leads to games not being made anymore.
Or I could wait 6 months and buy everything deep discounted, instead of day one. Or buy everything second hand. Or from shady key reseller sites. Or any other of a spectrum of consumer behaviours that I'm sure publishers would really prefer I don't engage in as it directly affects their bottom line.

Something like TF2 I've spent way more than sticker price on (when it even had a sticker price), but I have correspondingly spent way more playtime on it than most other FPS titles put together.
If RTCW:ET got a steam release with a nominal fee, I would straight up pay that fee for the conveience of steamworks integration, even though the original game is legit free.
I've double (and triple) dipped on titles for both format shifting reasons, and also to support that developer.

I mean, I'm on GAF, I can't believe I'm the only one here who has similarly gone 'above and beyond' as a fan of a title or series in supporting it. I'm not even rich.
There are people out there that will drop $1000 on a game because $1000 ain't shit to them and they want to get their clanmates matching skins or whatever.

I mean... yeah, lifes unfair, some people have more than they need and some people don't get what they want, AAA videogames isn't the place I expect to solve that

There is a huge difference between going above and beyond when it comes to supporting a dev that you like by purchasing a game for multiple platforms, and paying for a chance to get something that you want form a loot box. If you buy a game for anther platform that you already own you know what you're getting. If you buy a key to a loot box it could be one of many things, most of which you may have no interest in. Nice strawman though.

You guys play games for vastly different reasons than I do then.
If I am not having fun playing a game, I will stop playing it.
It doesn't matter how close to an achievement / prestige level / next crate drop / whatever extrinsic motivator you choose is lingering there if I force myself to do something I am not enjoying any more.

Like... why do that to yourself? Then get angry at the product because you're doing that?

It's not just the two of us that feel this way when we play games. Filling up progress bars, leveling up, opening crates, they all have the same effect on the brain. Something positive happens, we try to replicate it for the rush that comes along with it. They added RPG elements to sports games over a decade ago because filling the bar and getting rewarded feels good. You experience it the same way when you play a game you find enjoyable. You get bored of it because you no longer get that rush from playing it.

Everyone has vices, just because yours aren't loot boxes doesn't mean that it has the same effect on others.

.

Nah, it seems like you and I were working towards the same point, we just took different paths. As for the last bit of your post, that's what bothers me the most. People so aggressively apathetic that it borders on encouragement of these loot box systems.

 

[LordRaptor]

As for the last bit of your post, that's what bothers me the most. People so aggressively apathetic that it borders on encouragement of these loot box systems.

I'm not apathetic. I like lootbox systems.
I gave a list of reasons why at the top of this page, and again in the other thread covering much of the same ground that you're also posting in that I am at odds with most of GAF by saying that.

My argument is not the same as Nick_C's.

Fair enough. I still stand by the point that playing the game is (should be) reward in and of itself; additional motivators are the gravy, not the main course.

 

[Nick_C]

I'm not apathetic. I like lootbox systems.
I gave a list of reasons why at the top of this page, and again in the other thread covering much of the same ground that you're also posting in that I am at odds with most of GAF by saying that.



Fair enough. I still stand by the point that playing the game is (should be) reward in and of itself; additional motivators are the gravy, not the main course.

Wasn't calling you out, though I can see how you would come to that conclusion considering the conversation we've had today. I was more specifically talking about the "Who fucking cares?" posts that usually pop up in these kinds of threads.

And yeah, in my post that you quoted I said something along the lines of you getting your kicks from rewarding gameplay above all else. A lot of others don't.

 

[BigEmil]

Overall development costs have more than doubled, and many games released this gen don’t make money.

AAA games do generally need additional monetization, that’s a basic fact at this point. How that monetization is achieved, on the other hand, is what’s worth debating.

Loot boxes are gross and predatory, but incredibly profitable. We need better DLC and less disruptive alternatives.

Then cut down on dev time and marketing etc then don't make us consumers pay for their shit

 

[Freshmaker]

Overall development costs have more than doubled, and many games released this gen don’t make money.

AAA games do generally need additional monetization, that’s a basic fact at this point. How that monetization is achieved, on the other hand, is what’s worth debating.

Loot boxes are gross and predatory, but incredibly profitable. We need better DLC and less disruptive alternatives.

They really need to reevaluate their approach rather than just strapping more money hooks to their efforts.

 

[NullPointer]

Then cut down on dev time and marketing etc then don't make us consumers pay for their shit

Or again, make a free-to-play game where players can expect recurrent microtransaction offers. If they want to remove that ceiling on profit per player, stop asking people to fess up $60-$100 plus paid expansions.

 

[LordRaptor]

Or again, make a free-to-play game where players can expect recurrent microtransaction offers. If they want to remove that ceiling on profit per player, stop asking people to fess up $60-$100 plus paid expansions.

While I think this is an entirely fair comment to make, I also think if you want AAA level production values, there is a baseline cost associated with that.

Like... I would expect an F2P Forza to look more like Trackmania and not have licenced cars. If it was super successful maybe it would get those licences and a visual upgrade down the line, but not at launch.

 

[NullPointer]

While I think this is an entirely fair comment to make, I also think if you want AAA level production values, there is a baseline cost associated with that.

Like... I would expect an F2P Forza to look more like Trackmania and not have licenced cars. If it was super successful maybe it would get those licences and a visual upgrade down the line, but not at launch.

Except that there are free-to-play games out there with AAA production values. Or they can get there over time.

I think this notion was more true when it came to the first waves of free-to-play games.

 

[LordRaptor]

Except that there are free-to-play games out there with AAA production values. Or they can get there over time.

I think this notion was more true when it came to the first waves of free-to-play games.

I dunno, most F2P games are on the PC (for various reasons) and as such skew lower production budget aesthetics for the double whammy that they have no upfront income, and that they need as broad a scope as possible because they rely on volume of customers, which usually means you need to be able to run your game on a non-gaming PC, like a laptop with integrated graphics.

 

[Mass Effect]

I disagree with that assessment, because loot boxes (of the cosmetic kind);

Too bad most games with loot boxes don't only have cosmetics in them though, so it kind of blunts your point.

 

[NullPointer]

I dunno, most F2P games are on the PC (for various reasons) and as such skew lower production budget aesthetics for the double whammy that they have no upfront income, and that they need as broad a scope as possible because they rely on volume of customers, which usually means you need to be able to run your game on a non-gaming PC, like a laptop with integrated graphics.

Again, I'd hold up Warframe as a model to emulate. That game plays on everything, has high production values and a ton of content. And the free-to-play model is not only fair, but I bet DE is doing pretty damn well from it.

Basically there are models out there worth taking a look at. Warframe is one. Pillars of Eternity seems like another one that comes up, though I don't have personal experience with it. Titanfall 2 is another example closer to home, though I'm not sure their post-release revenue sources will ever make up for their bad launch timing.

It'd be interesting to see if something like a Project Cars could have been viable as free-to-play. Some players enjoy the longer progression or grinds in attaining rare cars and moving through events. And building a platform rather than a new installment every two years could work if done right.

 

[spideydouble]

Gamesradar review of Forza 7



Exciting and exquisite.

We've already lost. Turn 10 will use those quotes on the GOTY edition to describe the loot boxes.

Getting beat and shit on by my abuser after non-consensual rough sex just makes consensual tender sex all the more meaningful. - anonymous Stockholm Syndrome victim

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

Getting beat and shit on by my abuser after non-consensual rough sex just makes consensual tender sex all the more meaningful. - anonymous Stockholm Syndrome victim

We've reached the part of the discussion where actual physical and sexual abuse is compared to a video game monetization scheme.

 

[LordRaptor]

Too bad most games with loot boxes don't only have cosmetics in them though, so it kind of blunts your point.

Are you talking about all games that have lootboxes, including the free to pay and mobile space, or are you talking about what this topic is talking about, which is AAA full price games that use lootboxes as an additional post release revenue stream?

Because if its the former, I wasn't really talking about that, and yeah, a game that costs you nothing to play is going to be aggressive about trying to make you pay something.

If its the latter, I have literally never played a game that does that, but I'm not a videogames encyclopedia, I'll admit there may be one that does.
I would question the 'most' though, unless I've just been super lucky in my purchase habits.

Again, I'd hold up Warframe as a model to emulate. That game plays on everything, has high production values and a ton of content. And the free-to-play model is not only fair, but I bet DE is doing pretty damn well from it.

Basically there are models out there worth taking a look at. Warframe is one. Pillars of Eternity seems like another one that comes up, though I don't have personal experience with it. Titanfall 2 is another example closer to home, though I'm not sure their post-release revenue sources will ever make up for their bad launch timing.

I mean, POE and Warframe are examples of games that have been built over time through success into what they are now - neither launched with anything approaching as much content as they have now.
Titanfall 2 isn't F2P, and had production values appropriate to being intended to be a full price boxed product. EA have released F2P FPSes before, but... well, compare the production values of Battlefield Heroes with a contemporary 'real' Battlefield.
Its night and day.

 

[NullPointer]

I mean, POE and Warframe are examples of games that have been built over time through success into what they are now - neither launched with anything approaching as much content as they have now.
Titanfall 2 isn't F2P, and had production values appropriate to being intended to be a full price boxed product. EA have released F2P FPSes before, but... well, compare the production values of Battlefield Heroes with a contemporary 'real' Battlefield.
Its night and day.

Titanfall 2 isn't free-to-play but its a good example of offering microtransactions without disturbing balance, without gambling, and while keeping the community together though updates and expansions. Sorry I should have been clear on that.

And you're right that free-to-play games don't hatch out of their eggs fully formed, but is that really a problem? Even the big publishers talk about how they want to engage the community earlier in the development process, and launching as an alpha and then a long beta could achieve that goal of building out the wider game in a way thats responsive to their playerbase. And once these games are mature there is no limit to the revenue they can bring in.

Now I don't see free-to-play as a panacea to solve all of gaming's ills, and you can certainly make the same bad mistakes that AAA publishers tend to make, but more that its a model that can work with certain games that can hit revenue targets while having a happy playerbase over the long term.

 

[supersaw]

While I think this is an entirely fair comment to make, I also think if you want AAA level production values, there is a baseline cost associated with that.

Like... I would expect an F2P Forza to look more like Trackmania and not have licenced cars. If it was super successful maybe it would get those licences and a visual upgrade down the line, but not at launch.

I seriously doubt that. I think people overestimate the production costs in a forza game, they've probably made a major investment with 5 and horizon 2 getting all the models to HD standards but if you break things down they've only added 3 tracks to this iteration, 2 of which have been in previous forza games.

Laser scanning and modelling cars and engine work would also cost a bit but I think it's a lot less content being added with each iteration than something like a COD game where all set pieces and maps are built from scratch each iteration.

 

[Orca]

Game design and functionality were already impacted..

I told you guys when Overwatch gated speech lines and sprays behind random lootboxes. Any game that has lootboxes and the ability to pay real money for them = game design insidiously impacted to push people to spend said real money. Doesn't matter the nature of the content. If i were a reviewer included in MC, i would score 3\10 every game that does this.

Nothing's preventing having random boxes AND the ability to selectively purchase any item. Except the sheer greed, exploitation of players and corruption of game design so clearly evident by devs and pubs choosing not to.

Ideally I'd like something like what Destiny 2 does, where you can buy things directly after getting enough of the bright dust to afford it. Maybe a bit less of a grind to get to the point you can afford things, but it's a compromise that works for me.

 

[Matt]

I knew the answer, I was just pointing out that people keep swearing out Turn10. You think they *prefer* to set up their game this way? It's their publisher demanding GaaS games with long revenue tails for whales. They (unfortunately) don't care if the reception is less than stellar or if they sell less units of software up front, because they are banking on making a continued buck from people instead. It sucks, but it's certainly not Turn10s issue is what I was getting at

Oh I know, I was agreeing with you.

And they DO care if this negatively effects sales and reception, but at some point it becomes a math game.

Then cut down on dev time and marketing etc then don't make us consumers pay for their shit

Cutting down on marketing means lower sales (generally), and "less dev time" is...not really what most people want.

They really need to reevaluate their approach rather than just strapping more money hooks to their efforts.

Well they certainly don't NEED to.

 

[thumb]

Again, I'd hold up Warframe as a model to emulate. That game plays on everything, has high production values and a ton of content. And the free-to-play model is not only fair, but I bet DE is doing pretty damn well from it.

Basically there are models out there worth taking a look at. Warframe is one. Pillars of Eternity seems like another one that comes up, though I don't have personal experience with it. Titanfall 2 is another example closer to home, though I'm not sure their post-release revenue sources will ever make up for their bad launch timing.

You already know that I'm with you on Warframe. It's a great example of F2P done right. By as I've thought about it more, my worry is that Warframe (and potentially Path of Exile) will be difficult to emulate in terms of its overal model. Basically, to fully emulate Warframe, you need to have a set of reasonably priced items in a store, almost none of which are locked behind randomized buys. But most importantly, all of your game systems need to be tuned around being great even if people aren't paying: and this is an incredibly delicate operation. What does it take to earn something in-game? If it's too easy, no one buys. If it's too hard, it feels punitive. Answering that question in a way that upholds the quality of the game but still allows you to make money is not obvious. And if you have publishers breathing down your neck (Warframe was self-published) it might be too easy to press your finger on the scale.

Basically, Warframe seems like a lotus in a swamp of terrible and exploitative F2P games. It's more than a model, it's also a kind of attitude and approach.

 

[Maintenance]

Cross posting:

Turn 10 just released a statement, will fix the VIP issue returning it back to FM6 levels and gave a few bonuses to current VIP and Ultimate owners.

"Secondly, and even more significantly, we will be changing VIP rewards in Forza Motorsport 7. This new system will work like it did in Forza Motorsport 6, offering a 2X base credit bonus after every race. We’ve already started work on this feature and we will release it as soon as possible. Look for more information on this update as we near the release date."

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Overall development costs have more than doubled, and many games released this gen don’t make money.

AAA games do generally need additional monetization, that’s a basic fact at this point.

Sounds like the AAA industry is a fucking mess, then. What the fuck has gone on this gen to make costs more than double, after the already skyrocketing costs of last gen?

 

[Karak]

Damn Turn 10 turned it around

 

[rrs]

Has anyone else done the numbers on credit gain on F7 vs F6? One of the YTers I subscribe to seems to put the credit gain with no assist + toughest AI as higher on F7 vs F6 w/VIP. And with VIP being unsuck'd, I'd say the loot box assault isn't at the cost of base game as on first sight, or that Turn10 hears the pitchfork types quite well.

 

[NullPointer]

Damn Turn 10 turned it around

Its still built upon loot crates but its damn good to see a quick statement on the VIP front, some concessions and work towards reverting it to its classic form.

 

[Freshmaker]

Well they certainly don't NEED to.

They actually do. The way they're pushing AAA has been redlining into unsustainability for years now.

 

[Audioboxer]

Cross posting:

Turn 10 just released a statement, will fix the VIP issue returning it back to FM6 levels and gave a few bonuses to current VIP and Ultimate owners.

"Secondly, and even more significantly, we will be changing VIP rewards in Forza Motorsport 7. This new system will work like it did in Forza Motorsport 6, offering a 2X base credit bonus after every race. We’ve already started work on this feature and we will release it as soon as possible. Look for more information on this update as we near the release date."

People on the internet shouldn't complain about monetization because devs are only doing it to cover the cost of making the game. Anyone still want to float that?

There's still no need to have loot boxes in this game, and VIP costs above and beyond the $60 to give you an advantage over "peasant" buyers of the game. This is probably the best result you'll get out of Forza 7 though. Watch lots of people praise Turn 10 now calling them a dev that listens. In reality, welcome to PR risk management. This won't have been done because they care, but because the internet is igniting and reviews on Metacritic are starting to suffer a little. It's the same result as Blizzard removing the Diablo 3 AH or Bethesdas first removal of paid for mods.

They all want to do it again, and just find ways to reintroduce things with less gamer anger.

 

[farisr]

Damn Turn 10 turned it around

Not really, as it changes nothing for the non-VIP buyers.

 

[BrassDragon]

People on the internet shouldn't complain about monetization because devs are only doing it to cover the cost of making the game. Anyone still want to float that?

Nah, that argument isn't going to die and is still happening with Shadow of War. The problem is that it's wholly based on fan speculation, I've not heard anyone in the industry making this case except for online games with intense and ongoing post-launch support like Overwatch or Warframe. I'll consider it seriously when someone like Andrew Wilson, Eric Hirshberg or Yves Guillemot starts using this defence... but they're unlikely to because the numbers won't back them up.

It's just a cudgel used to silence criticism of poor business practices.