Up For Debate - Should Microtransactions Ever be in $60 AAA Games?

Written by Jon Sutton on Sat, Feb 17, 2018 5:15 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

Now, obviously, it would be preferable for most of us if microtransactions weren’t a thing at all. In reality though, business decisions dictate that they are a necessary step for monetisation and, from the looks of things, a lot of gamers are only too happy to oblige.

The battle lines over microtransactions are also constantly being redrawn. At first, we turned our noses up at the mere mention of them, they were for F2P mobile games, and now most people are fine with them as long as they’re cosmetic. Just don’t put in loot boxes, whatever you do. Over time the resistance to microtransactions has been eroded, and now there’s rarely a AAA game that doesn’t have at least some form of in-game purchases.

It’s easy to take a stand against them, but when you see the figures for what the likes of Activision and EA are earning from these things, it doesn’t half feel like a losing battle.

As ever with something like this though, there are many shades of complexity to what’s going on here. This isn’t necessarily just a case of milking the fans for every last penny they’ve got. There’s a generally accepted right way and wrong way to go about introducing in-game purchases, as EA and DICE found out to their detriment with Star Wars Battlefront 2.

The first thing to consider is that we crave lasting experiences. In 1990, Super Mario World arrived to rave reviews and a six-hour length. That just wouldn’t cut it these days. If a game isn’t playable for hundreds of hours there are likely to be complaints, forcing developers and publishers to adapt to changing demand. We want games that we can buy and potentially play for years to come. We also only want to spend $60, the same amount we spent on Super Mario World in 1990.

At some point, the money has to come from somewhere if you want monthly content updates for years. Rare aren’t going to keep making Sea of Thieves quests out of the goodness of their hearts, they’re going to want a regular revenue stream that can keep paying for it all. In essence, the profit from ongoing support for a game should be equal to the revenue from just dropping support and developing a new game, else it wouldn’t be worthwhile. The way this content is funded these days is usually microtransactions, often of the cosmetic variety. A few willing customers are prepared to drop 10 bucks on the occasional weapon skin, and it means the rest of us all get free maps and new weapons. It’s a marked shift from just five years ago when it was all about the season passes. Every multiplayer game had a season pass which fragmented the player base and separates the haves and the have-nots. Now we’ve just a few stuck-in-the-past series like Battlefield and Call of Duty holding out.

If you ask me though, season passes are far worse for the average game than microtransactions, provided the microtransactions are implemented well. I’ve sunk hundreds and hundreds of hours into Rainbow Six Siege, been given nine new maps, dozens of patches, and 16 new Operators, and I haven’t had to spend a penny. To me that’s a far better deal than picking up this year’s Call of Duty, then dropping £40 on the map packs, and then doing it all again a year later. The value proposition there is just insane.

So what do you think then, do microtransactions flat-out have no place in a $60 game? Would you prefer a return to season passes, or perhaps you think there’s no need for additional content after launch? Let us know what you think of the situation below!

Should Microtransactions Ever be in 60 AAA Games?

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
10
Offline
14:01 Feb-26-2018

I agree with the author. Microtransactions may not be pretty but they are a necessity if used right. It is illogical to think that a game can continue to provide content/gameplay for years after launch. Who's gonna fund the development?

1
Rep
21
Offline
15:15 Feb-19-2018

People don't seem to understand this is business. AAA companies need to appeal to the masses of gamers. Some companies have a payroll of hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of fulltime employees with benefits and other business expenses. They're already giving away 1/5 of their sale price to their distributors. It's not JUST about covering their cost of the game's budget in sales.

0
Rep
21
Offline
15:18 Feb-19-2018

It's not as simple as "make lower budget games". Lower budget games are doable, but then when companies close branches and studios and lay off employees, it's still seen as bad. It's not about turning a profit just over the budget of the game you make, you have hundreds/thousands of people to pay. Taxes to pay. Bills. Business expenses. These add up too.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:31 Feb-19-2018

NOT only is it NOT as simple, they can NOT reduce them further and still meet the expectations of players, famous voice actors are usually 1-2% of the budget which is probably as much as they can cut along with a bit of better management, but most already have near excellent management, very few don't, for example CD Project Red.

0
Rep
21
Offline
15:21 Feb-19-2018

It's also not as simple as "make the game more expensive and cut the MTs and DLCs". Microtransactions are a huge profit maker, and we've seen this. DLCs and Season Passes are completely different, that's extremely easy to get rid of by increasing price. But no company is going to just cut off something that makes them millions/billions for minimal work.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:34 Feb-19-2018

It is as simple as that if the price increase is big enough, but as I said I have no problems if micro-transactions are there to basically support the company(donate) while getting something small in return that you can get it and EVERYTHING else Guaranteed(no RNG) through gameplay challenges and achievements and progression as a whole.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:36 Feb-19-2018

But the problem is that they use micro-transactions as a psychological exploitation mean to make people purchase them, which is also why I am against ALL of them, even if all content is available people will buy them based on that.


Just make a donate button, I'm sure that if they flat out said "Please support us if you like our product" even people that do NOT buy micro-transactions might donate 5-10$ or even more, these "whales" are sure to donate as well and I personally would donate more money to a game that is obviously made with passion and is good and I never buy micro-transactions and DLC based on principle.

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
16:42 Feb-19-2018

Heh, whales aren't going to donate, their compulsion isn't to spend money, it's to have 'the thing'. If the thing is free, they won't spend a penny.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:04 Feb-19-2018

eh still, even without them, it will be good enough.

0
Rep
21
Offline
20:36 Feb-19-2018

I just think increasing price will get rid of Season Pass and small DLC incentives. Microtransactions are just worth too much to developers. It's practically free money to them. Raising to $100 doesn't cover that cost for Microtransactions profit they make. They need to make up the 90% of people who spend under 100 on MTs, the 9% that spend 100-1000, and the 1% that spends more than 1000.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:36 Feb-19-2018

well as I said, just make them donations... there is a reason why micro-transactions are currently being debated as gambling addiction, because they probably are.


Just make a donation program... simple... I'm sure more people will donate than will buy micro-transactions, but at the same time, people that donate more than 1000$ will probably go away, so it balances it out.

0
Rep
21
Offline
02:12 Feb-20-2018

What would donations do though? What's the incentive? Just to give money and get nothing in return? People are already complaining about spending $60 on games, you think they want to donate to a cause they find too expensive as it is? I'd say 9/10 people would prefer microtransactions and receive something for their money than to give their money away. Both are optional, one gives back, one doesnt

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:44 Feb-20-2018

One is proven to be addictive on many occasions, the other hasn't

0
Rep
21
Offline
04:57 Feb-20-2018

Which isn't illegal. Age restrictions already exist in games. They will sooner offer a 21+ USA age restriction than ban billions of taxable dollars from being made.


Again. Donations solve nothing and it's not even in the same category, you're suggesting people just give their money away with no incentive. People don't buy microtransactions to support games...... They buy them to get items..

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:12 Feb-20-2018

Age shouldn't be a factor...

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:06 Feb-20-2018

I really think you're overestimating people's generosity here Psychoman. Activision just made more from microtransactions in a year than it from game sales, donations are never going to touch a figure like that. Which would you rather do, donate $10 to cancer research or send $10 EA's way because you liked their game you spent $60 on?

1
Rep
21
Offline
16:13 Feb-20-2018

Well most people akin MTs and Loot boxes to Gambling, which is what the law is looking into to my understanding. Addiction isn't illegal in this case.. So what's wrong with it being addictive? Gaming was just declared as a recognized addiction by the World Health Organization. Should we now have limitations and restrictions on gaming?

0
Rep
21
Offline
16:16 Feb-20-2018

I factored age because the only argument you could try to make legally against MTs is that they are a form of gambling, in which case, most states gambling is legal to people over 21 (some 18). So if they deem it gambling, I'm saying they'll introduce age restrictions far sooner than they will ban them. Cigarettes are addictive, not illegal with an age restriction.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:51 Feb-20-2018

Why should age matter, when it comes to psychological exploitation? I mean I love the irony behind it, but if we are to be based on principles, age really shouldn't matter. XD


And they make much more money on loot boxes than they did when they had 10-12 skins costing 1-2$ each...

-1
Rep
21
Offline
17:35 Feb-20-2018

Again, I just said age would only matter because the only argument you can make against MT is they are considered gambling. "Psychological exploitation" is irrelevant, it's not illegal. Addiction isn't illegal, capitalizing on people's need/want/urge to spend isn't illegal. Morally wrong? maybe. But nothing wrong with it in my book.

0
Rep
21
Offline
17:39 Feb-20-2018

You're saying it's to be addictive, but that's not illegal, nor wrong (in my opinion). Casinos have capitalized on it for decades. I gamble regularly, if I spend my money in that way, win or lose, it's my responsibility. So I said age would factor IF they deem it gambling, which is the argument they are trying to make. And IF they do, then they will probably give age restrictions against it.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:41 Feb-20-2018

that means that all means of psychological abuse and exploitation should be legal as well, brain-washing(well this obviously is), verbal threats, verbal intimidation, being forced to make decisions against your will, humiliation and harassment, excessive teasing, cursing, punishment and threats of punishment, insulting and bullying of none-physical type.


Gotta love laws, they work as long as you do NOT apply logic to them, but same can be said about religion, communism, nazism, extremism and many other "isms". XD


You made my night.

-1
Rep
21
Offline
21:18 Feb-20-2018

lol now you're just overreaching to try to seem right... You change your wording every other post.. First it's addictive.. Then it's psychological exploitation.. Now it's psychological abuse? Make up your mind. Who compares threats and intimidation to someone not being able to will themselves against compulsive spending? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

0
Rep
21
Offline
21:20 Feb-20-2018

So casinos being open is the same as threatening someone with physical harm? Harassment is the same as spending money on your own will excessively? This was a good conversation for a bit and now you're going off the wall trying to make some statement about how MTs are abusive to consumers..

0
Rep
21
Offline
21:29 Feb-20-2018

I just hate it when casinos FORCE you to go into their establishments and HARASS you to sit down at a table and THREATEN you to spend your money......... I hate when companies BULLY you to buy MTs and ABUSE you to spend more money than you need to..


I honestly feel like you're trolling me now lol. The two share no similarities.

0
Rep
21
Offline
01:02 Feb-21-2018

Adding this a bit later, but .. You compared microtransactions to brainwashing, which in itself in absurd. The two aren't comparable at all. One is being forced on you, the other is a willing purchase.. Everything you listed are serious problems that are forced onto a person. Buying a microtransaction once or a thousand times is willingness. There's nothing ever forcing your hand.

0
Rep
21
Offline
01:10 Feb-21-2018

As someone who's struggled with bullying and actual physical/verbal abuse and teasing and humiliation. And someone who's struggled with gambling problems (not addiction, I don't believe it's an addiction) and spending problems. I will tell you the two aren't comparable in anyway whatsoever. You can twist it any which way you want, but the two aren't even close.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
12:16 Feb-21-2018

now you are just twisting my words... first for addiction you need psychological exploitation.
And second I said that it is equivalent to them... big difference.


Also if you ask me personally, everything should be allowed, drugs, murder, everything, I hate human made AND enforced(directly or indirectly) limitations, but if we are trying to play the game of laws, let them be consistent and logical... no dumb exceptions.

-1
Rep
21
Offline
20:20 Feb-21-2018

I'm not twisting, you said that microtransactions are a form of brain washing... And then went on to give other examples of actual abuse. And I don't believe exploitation is needed for addiction, whether physical or mental. You can be addicted to just about anything.


Maybe I misunderstood what you mean with your previous post, if so, my bad.

0
Rep
21
Offline
20:22 Feb-21-2018

As I've said WHO now recognizes gaming addiction as a legal addiction. Is gaming as a whole exploitation? Some people just happen to let it overcome their lives. Same way some people can have a glass of wine every night or 2, or some people get trashed at 10 AM daily.

0
Rep
21
Offline
15:25 Feb-19-2018

They need to reshape the way MTs work. All content that can be purchased should not affect gameplay, and all content should be available without paying as well. This is something that is achievable. We will never convince a company to cut off their legs like that. You can argue indie games/small game studios don't use them, but it's extremely invalid. They don't have the expenses AAA companies do.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:32 Feb-22-2018

@EMc8791
addiction comes from psychological exploitation. if you psychology is NOT exploited by a mean that makes the person release dopamine and other "feel good" chemicals for no apparent reason, then the person can NOT get addicted, which is essentially brain-washing, don't narrow-brainwashing to just what you see in movies...

-1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:37 Feb-22-2018

And the human brain is stupid, as long as something does NOT post an immediate threat, it doesn't care, that's why people do drugs, alcohol, gamble until they can NOT do it anymore out of health or wealth issues. That's why people prone to addiction shouldn't be exploited, the same way you shouldn't flash lights in front of a person with epilepsy, only difference is that one has an immediate result and the other a long time result.


And I agree that it's the person that is at fault, as long as thing that is made is NOT made purposefully addictive/exploitive for those type of people, like micro-transactions seem to be.

-1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:43 Feb-22-2018

And I agree that it's the person that is at fault, as long as it is NOT made purposefully addictive/exploitive for those type of people, like micro-transactions seem to be, which is why they are discussed.


And please, just because something is legal or illegal, doesn't mean jack sh!t... laws are a fairy tale as far as I'm concerned... banning some drugs, but NOT all drugs... that just shows how stupid they are... selectively banning drugs that had high paid campaigns against them... coincidence? I don't think so.


But I do like that the only limitations you put on yourself are the ones with heavy clubs, badges and pistols.

-1
Rep
72
Offline
admin approved badge
07:56 Feb-19-2018

If it is a game with cosmetics and something you don't really need to buy then sure it is fine but if it is something that would give you the upper hand on someone that has been playing longer than the other player then i say no to that because pay to win is not really fun.

1
Rep
55
Offline
05:51 Feb-19-2018

Ugh... a few years ago, it was the same with the DLC fiasco - I'd say, no! Include all what is needed in the game to make it whole, up the price of what it costs and if its that good, people will buy it! Stop it with the microtransations, stop it with the DLCs... Make the whole damn game and just put whatever price tag ya want!

0
Rep
6
Offline
05:16 Feb-19-2018

as long as there are people with more money than brains it will continue

1
Rep
212
Offline
admin approved badge
03:18 Feb-19-2018

As long as it doesn't affect the gameplay experience I'm fine with them being included. I've never spent money on micro transactions but I'm not saying that you shouldn't. I'm sure the development costs must be rising significantly over the years and I don't think that the same $60 that was charged back then is enough now. If the person likes the game he can support the developer further by buying into micro transactions. As long as it's not Loot Box gambles and they affect the gameplay in the slightest bit I'm totally fine with them being included. This way you are not forced to buy into them and it's more of an option.

0
Rep
5
Offline
19:56 Feb-18-2018

Cosmetics only yes, why not ? Also stuff that can speed up the progress in single player only games, like AC:Origins or Deus Ex Mankind Divided. But in multiplayer games they should only be cosmetic, like in LoL, Dota, CS:GO, R6S and Overwatch.

-2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
19:58 Feb-18-2018

Why NOT cosmetics only? Because I want to unlock them through gameplay challenges and achievements... duh...
And nothing to speed up progress... NO type micro-transactions is ok... none... nada...

3
Rep
207
Offline
admin approved badge
21:51 Feb-18-2018

a system similar to TitanFall 2 ?

1
Rep
21
Offline
00:35 Feb-19-2018

Okay, but that's you. Not everybody likes having the sense of accomplishment to unlock something. That's just the way people are these days. I for one don't buy into it, but that really is just the way people think. Nobody wants to work for anything if you can have it handed to you. You have the option to do so still, don't see any harm in letting others purchase their meaningless cosmetics.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:43 Feb-19-2018

Yeah, it seems it's just me, I don't want to get things handed to me... that's boring... -_-

0
Rep
21
Offline
05:20 Feb-19-2018

Well that's what I'm saying, I personally don't spend money on stuff like that either, but it doesn't bother me that other's do. It actually makes me feel better knowing I earned what I got and somebody else wasted their money. But that's their prerogative.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:43 Feb-19-2018

yes, but they LOCK them behind a paywall and you can NOT get them without purchasing micro-transactions...

0
Rep
21
Offline
14:56 Feb-19-2018

I don't know or play many games that don't allow you to get unlockables without purchasing. That's just me though.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:29 Feb-19-2018

Name a shooter or MOBA/Esport and the majority of the cosmetics are available only through a paywall be it RNG or guaranteed. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

0
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
16:34 Feb-19-2018

EMc8791, they wasted their money, you wasted your time, who's the real winner in this situation?

0
Rep
21
Offline
20:48 Feb-19-2018

The company is the winner, but why is that bad? I just think the way microtransactions are handled needs to be changed. I don't personally play games where there is exclusivity in them, but alot of people say it's so, so I'll take that as true. I don't think there should be exclusives or anything that isn't available through gameplay.

0
Rep
85
Offline
19:06 Feb-18-2018

Just for cosmetic items as in CS:GO. The devs get the money and the player gets stupendous looking skins. People like me who don't buy skins get to use them for a while after killing those who own it and then die thinking, why would anyone want to spend money on a Red-White skinned AWP?

-1
Rep
-28
Offline
13:42 Feb-18-2018

Special visuals skins only. But there should be enough pretty skins without needing to buy them. So in essential what WOW is doing with their mounts. But not beyond that. There shouldn't be any other microtransactions!

-3
Rep
17
Offline
12:22 Feb-18-2018

Personally, micro transactions are tolerable if they are not integral to the core elements of the game. If it is just a small added bonus that doesn't give any distinct advantage online, I am fine with that. A business has their rights to maximize profits where ever they see fit as long as it doesn't exploit consumers. Also loot boxes is a complete no - fulfills the definition of gambling.

2
Rep
356
Offline
09:10 Feb-18-2018

Im just here to tell you if these microtransactions do not affect playing skills or give you some advantages over other players that I do not mind that but if they involve this **** then surly im against that

4
Rep
1
Offline
12:09 Feb-18-2018

As long as they do not affect player skills in online gameplay, there is no problem whether they are present or not.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:41 Feb-18-2018

To me they are a problem, I enjoyed it back when we earned EVERYTHING through simple gameplay challanges... including visuals... micro-transactions have to go and the micro-transactions model too, either do subscriptions and just make us pay the right amount for your game and release the entire package and all future content of it for free.

0
Rep
13
Offline
08:22 Feb-18-2018

Depends.From my part-when i started AC Origins,those grinding for pelts,bronze,metal,etc was a big pain from the beginning of the game till i have reached 15-17 lvl or something.To be more specific-i had a very few hrs. a week to play and i just wanted to go further in the story and the exploration.Didn't get to play a few hrs. a day not until end of January and with this weekly events and with...

-3
Rep
13
Offline
08:24 Feb-18-2018

...the DLCs coming strong i was far way behind to strongly keep away from spoilers.So,i guess i understand some form of MT in a way of people busy with life,it was tough to not get some booster? packs,but i've managed it.Used only some helix credit that have come with the Gold Edition,tho,but the game is massive for a working class dude with a wife and bills to manage,you know?

-2
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
09:47 Feb-18-2018

But doesn't that suggest the game is actively designed to waste your time unleash you pay for microtransactions? They're the worst sort of my mind, no that I ever felt the need to grind for anything in AC Origins myself.

3
Rep
13
Offline
09:56 Feb-18-2018

Yes,it's designed to grind.Tried many times to stay on-point with the main quests only,but no way i could get those materials required for upgrade my skills,equipment,etc.So,there is that,to.But big open world games are meant to take a lot of your time,now do they?I pay only for DLC and expansions i think are worth it-whole W3's HoS and B&W took me over a year to complete,tho.

0
Rep
108
Offline
16:05 Feb-18-2018

Listen mate. They made the game so it would be a grind. They made it that way so you feel pressured into spending money with them. The boxes you get in game are there to get ya hooked, like a drug dealer giving you the first one free. The whole game is designed to tell you MTXs, the whole loot system was built to do that and only that.

3
Rep
108
Offline
16:06 Feb-18-2018

Now if you want to spend money with that, that's cool, you're choice and it doesn't say anything bad about you. It does say something bad about Ubisoft that they pressured you into spending money you didn't need to spend and also made you feel like it was a privilege to do so.

0
Rep
19
Offline
07:21 Feb-18-2018

Story expansions and big DLC aren't counted as "micro" transactions right? They're fine I believe.

9
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:05 Feb-18-2018

expansions -> extra content rivaling the one of the original/previous/base game is NOT a micro-transaction and is the only DLC I'm willing to buy, because expansions are usually a whole new sequel to a game, but content and story-wise, while keeping the graphics the same(absolutely fine by me) and tweaking the gameplay a bit, absolutely fine by me if I already like the gameplay improving it a bit is great and they usually do NOT cost as much as whole game to develop and purchase.

4
Rep
4
Offline
admin approved badge
05:02 Feb-18-2018

I'm ok with it, just don't make a game around the micro transactions (I'm not paying for it regardless anyway, and sometimes other people need a little boost, so you have options)

0
Rep
21
Offline
03:11 Feb-18-2018

if the selling price of games is still 60$ than what it was in 90's then I think the selling price should be made 100$ by now. You know inflation and stuff.

1
Rep
108
Offline
04:58 Feb-18-2018

People keep saying that like it actually means something, it doesn't. Are you really so vapid that you think these companies aren't making money selling their games for $60?

3
Rep
9
Offline
06:50 Feb-18-2018

I agree. They also don't understand that inflation or stocks or anything market related don't dictate video game prices. WE dictate game prices, if gamers don't want to pay it, then we won't buy it. Game devs could hike prices up and still make the same revenue, but we all know that's not a lasting strategy as that will be the last game they sell successfully, because of us. Inflation lol, nobody's salary is inflating last i checked

1
Rep
95
Offline
10:21 Feb-18-2018

Yes as with anything, buyer and seller, demand and supply. We and the devs/publishers dictate game prices. The irony is that here we are debating whether "this" should be happening, when its already obvious that it is!

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:11 Feb-18-2018

Well RogueRequest name me 50 publishers and dev teams that are making more money than needed... let's knock off the obvious ones, Ubisoft, EA, Microsoft, Sony, Valve, Rockstar, Nintendo, Activision-Blizzard, Konami, Take-two, Square Enix, Bandai Namco.


Now that the obvious ones are gone, name me 50 that make too much money/more money than they need. If you don't know there are hundreds of publishers and game studios that are NOT indie...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:20 Feb-18-2018

Ninja Theory did a really good job making and selling Hellblade. It was an awesome game and didn't gangbusters and yet it sold enough to make it's money back and be successful for the studio. Oh, and it only cost $30. Oh, and **** off on the name 50 publishers. Seriously?

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:30 Feb-18-2018

No one here is talking about indie studios that are publishing $0-$20 games. We are talking about the Ubisofts and the EAs and the Activisions. You're losing the argument and so you start trying to derail it. Name 50 studios that are publishing AAA games that cost $60 where the studio is not making a profit. Do it. I am betting that you can't.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:40 Feb-18-2018

Neither am I, I'm NOT talking indie either....
here is an incomplete list of AAA publishers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_publishers


Don't have enough characters and am way too lazy and I already listed around 15 above off the top of my head... I let you list them using all the research you can do on the internet...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:48 Feb-18-2018

That is not a list of AAA video game publishers, it's just a list of publishers. I said give me a list of 50 AAA publishers that make $60 games who aren't making a profit.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:12 Feb-18-2018

And in (almost all, there is always a bad company and they usually go bankrupt)software development teams, the salaries increase much more than the inflation after each successful project. Just because most other spheres don't do it, because their employees don't dare to ask for more is NOT their problem...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:42 Feb-18-2018

Okay, here's one that you're going to learn about soon enough. People don't get huge raised after a game is successful. In fact, plenty of people get laid off for months and months at time while the developer works on that game. They are lucky if they get hired back to work on the next game. Happens all the time. FACT.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:13 Feb-18-2018

Hmm... maybe in the sh!ttiest companies and there are very few of them...


My best friend works in a business software company and got two raises after two finished projects, his friend at work used to work for a gaming company and got a raise after every project his team finished, but he left due to them overworking them hard to meet unrealistic deadlines, that company is still searching for programmers, so I doubt it has more than enough programmers to fire them...(XS Software)

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:13 Feb-18-2018

In software companies you get paid based on how profitable you are and until you get profitable you are paid a base low salary, simple as that... software companies that don't do that, get a bad reputation over time and they don't have enough developers...

2
Rep
14
Offline
06:57 Feb-18-2018

You are still paying 60$ , but here in South Africa PC game prices has gone from R350/+-60$ (When R6/1$) to R700 - R800 /60$ (R12/ 1$ ). That is Double what it was. Now I know we are at the bottom of the world ,but still, have a thought for the rest of us please. 100$ for you is like 200$ for us.

0
Rep
11
Offline
07:33 Feb-18-2018

Sure the prices haven't increased (mostly) from the 90s. But the population of gamers buying them has increased exponentially. Back then Devs used to be happy if 500K people bought it, that would actually be a really big deal. But now we're seeing sales figures of Millions. That pretty much offsets the rising development cost for the AAA titles.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:18 Feb-18-2018

yes, but the prices have increased exponentially as well, plus on top of that nowadays 99% of gamers are in 1% of the game and 1% of gamers are in 99% of the games, so saying that there are more people alone doesn't mean much...


after the top 100 on steam, every other game is basically starving for players... same with consoles and thousands of games get released yearly...

0
Rep
11
Offline
13:05 Feb-18-2018

That would be true for Indie games. But that's a whole different topic.
Most AAA titles make their targets and more if the game is of good quality. If the game is trash then it probably deserves to not make the money spent on it.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:31 Feb-18-2018

Yeah, they barely do, utilizing all their profiting crap to do so...
As I said a max of 25 AAA publishers make more than they need, that's why ATM there are many more CLOSED AAA publishers and studios than there are still in business and that's why many die each year...

0
Rep
116
Offline
14:45 Feb-18-2018

And I guess that you have considerable and actual proof that none makes money and max 25 make more than they need?
You can't even name 25 AAA publishers on top of your head.
If they don't know how to properly do their business then they deserve to die off. That's capitalism. What made them rich is what will most probably end up killing them. A fitting end, don't you agree.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
14:58 Feb-18-2018

I said that no more than 25 make more money than NEEDED... and you can see how many are dead and dying... and on top of that even big publishers like EA close studios due to low income and profits... microsoft closed so many as well.


Sure, they can do their business properly, but people expect them to have graphics fitting for 2018 and NOT 2008, sound quality fitting for 2018 and NOT 2008, more and more hours to be poured into a game, because suddenly 6-8 was too little...
you get what you pay for...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:03 Feb-18-2018

The average cost for an annual AAA game is 75-100$ million dollars USD, for each game sold at 60$ they have to remove taxes and then after that 30%(on steam) 20%(on consoles) for the platforms, then 15% for the game engine licenses, that means out of the 60$ with 11% taxes average for sales in the US at least, the developers get 29.38$ dollars USD...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:03 Feb-18-2018

for a budget of 100$ million dollars the game has to sell 3.3 million copies just to break even... which is NOT enough as it has to make enough money for the next more expensive game, it has to make even more money if the next game fails to have money for the one after that and everything I mentioned before and you completely ignored and I don't want to repeat myself for the 4th time...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:07 Feb-18-2018

and it's 3.3 million copies assuming it sells ALL copies at 60$, which never happens the average price AAA games sell in the first year is 40-48$, at 40$ average, they need to sell 5 million copies just to break even, which again it's far from enough for a stable business to be lead...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:09 Feb-18-2018

https://imgur.com/a/viK9M
here so I do NOT repeat myself, again, too lazy to write again and again the same thing... and these are facts, don't call them speculations, do your research...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:16 Feb-18-2018

And you say I am biased, but I showed you many numbers and everything to back up what I said, it might NOT be 100% accurate, but NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS(except for mathematics as we invented them), while you just said they are false, without any counter-arguments, to you they are evil, bad and have way too much money with not even something to prove me wrong... You cherry-pick the ones that indeed make more money than needed and ignore the rest that are actually struggling...

0
Rep
116
Offline
15:17 Feb-18-2018

I guess we just don't agree, and your made up things wont make me trust you more, regardless of how many times you repeat them, so, bye.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, with you, and assumptions =/= facts. That's something you need to understand.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:20 Feb-18-2018

made up? I showed you tons of sources...


ok, yours by that logic are NOT even assumptions, yours are complete ignorance...


most of what I said are facts. for a FACT steam takes 30% of each game sold for themselves, for a FACT every game sold in the US has a tax of 11% in almost all states, for a FACT big 3rd party game engines cost 15-20% per game sold. For a fact AAA games cost between 75-100$ million dollars to develop at the very least.... these are facts, just search and you will see...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop


here is a list of AAA games and their costs...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:22 Feb-18-2018

Psychoman, you're not even involved in the industry. You're making up numbers. [Edited] I just don't understand why you are so hardcore in defending companies that have whole departments to lie for them and defend them.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:21 Feb-18-2018

And go listen to the CEOs of those companies, like Activision that said that Destiny 1 costed 500$ million dollars to develop, but later was revealed that it costed 140 million dollars with marketing included in the price... they will always say much higher numbers than they actually are...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:23 Feb-18-2018

there is a reason why people hire statistician for everything... they work... their statistics are accurate enough so it does NOT matter if they are NOT 100% accurate... you just don't want to accept it... again NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS 100% accurate... NOTHING, except mathematics and even that is NOT 100% accurate as we do NOT know what to do with infinite fractional numbers...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:25 Feb-18-2018

Even just right there you admit that they inflate their costs and yet you still want to use those numbers to defend them. The ONLY reason video games cost so much to make is because video game publishers want them to cost that much. Destiny didn't need a $150m advertising budget. CoD didn't need Kit Harrington in to sell well. It's all BS.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:27 Feb-18-2018

Yes, that is exactly why I would never trust what they say their costs are, but would trust 3rd party sources that are accurate enough...


and I said destiny costed 140$ million dollars WITH the marketing costs included in the budget, that means that development + licensing + marketing = 140$ million dollars... damn read properly please...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:27 Feb-18-2018

And I'm involved... I am a software developer, still studying, so unlike most people, I want to be informed ahead of time... -_-

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:37 Feb-18-2018

No one asked them to use Peter Dinklage as a voice actor for Destiny. In fact he sucked so much that everyone wanted him replaced, and he was replaced with Nolan North. Gamers don't care about that kind of stuff. Publishers do, but gamers don't.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:25 Feb-18-2018

@RogueRequest
Sure... because you are too lazy and mainly do NOT want to do research that goes against your interests...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:32 Feb-18-2018

I have done the research. I've read the shareholder reports. If these companies weren't making money on games that cost $60 10 years ago they wouldn't be around today. They were making money back then and they are making money now. It's you who keeps making up numbers and defending people that don't need to be defended.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:45 Feb-18-2018

who the hell talking about 10 years, ago, I have stated many times that games USED to be overpriced at 60$, I'm speaking for the last 3-4 years... -_-


And I showed many links and did a lot of calculations for @TheEmperor96 that he just dismissed, just because the CEOs of those companies didn't say so, if they did I can assure you they would say it's 4x times more than it actually is...

0
Rep
108
Offline
15:52 Feb-18-2018

You used made up numbers with no basis in fact. https://www.ubisoftgroup.com/comsite_common/en-US/images/Ubisoft%20FY13%20earnings%20English%20finalCtcm9997146.pdf That's an Ubisoft sales report from 2013, just before your 3-4 years and it says that they made plenty of money off Assassin's Creed 3, a game which had plenty of criticisms and no microtransactions.

2
Rep
108
Offline
15:58 Feb-18-2018

On the other hand. Blizzard-Activision made $4 billion from microtransactions last year alone. You really think that with these kind of numbers these companies are just going to up their prices to $100. Oh, wait, most games $100 when you throw in the season pass.

1
Rep
108
Offline
16:01 Feb-18-2018

You really think they're going to settle for making a little more profit when they could have ALL OF THE PROFIT? Even if your math is correct, and it's not, then a $40 prices increase across the board should be enough to bring their heads above water. That's not enough mate, not enough when with microtransactions theirs no upper limit to the profit to be made.

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:25 Feb-18-2018

again you are cherry-picking the biggest companies that actually do get more money than needed and I stated them above...


2013 is 5 years ago, 2012 is 6 years... I mean basic math... and after AC III they expanded the team a lot... plus AC III received criticism, but it sold on marketing and brand recognition alone... AC Unity sold a lot as well, more than AC III in fact... and on top of that both games are good, just had performance problems and AC III had a NOT as good main character as they had hard time topping off altair and ezio...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:30 Feb-18-2018

And from 2012 to 2016 alone ubisoft employees went from 6903 to 11667 that's a 70% growth.
https://imgur.com/a/XWjEQ
https://imgur.com/a/D3vsL
in 2017 they are over 12,000 which is over a 75% growth from 2012...


that's a

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:31 Feb-18-2018

and this proves that salaries do increase:
https://imgur.com/a/tmB9P
Usually if you actually do your job that means you get a raise, if you suck you get fired(obviously)...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:34 Feb-18-2018

And my point is NOT for micro-transactions, I'm completely AGAINST micro-transactions, my point is that 60$ alone are NOT enough in most cases... of course with micro-transactions they make enough or even more than enough money in the case of Activision-Blizzard and the few others..


60$ are NOT enough by themselves for most of them, that's why there are micro-transactions, paid DLCs and all other bullsh!t methods that they are using...

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:44 Feb-19-2018

also this proves that 99% of people are full-time employed at ubisoft...
https://imgur.com/a/Bg8wK
less than 1% are part time.

0
Rep
55
Offline
admin approved badge
01:24 Feb-18-2018

I don't like micro-transactions in most games, but I do understand the need for them. Games are more expensive than ever and yet the price of video games is still $60. Should they raise the price? Yes. Do I want them to? No. Can I settle for micro-transactions? If they're done correctly.


Make sure it's a game as a service akin to Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, or League of Legends where it's constantly being updated.
Make sure they're not game-breaking.
Don't throw them in your face.
Make sure ALL purchasable transactions are obtainable through regular play.
Don't be EA.


Just my opinion :D

1
Rep
108
Offline
05:01 Feb-18-2018

People like you keep saying that games cost so much these day with out ever looking at why they cost so much. Graphics? The game companies are the ones pushing graphics, not the customers. Movie star voice actors? Most gamers can't stand them. Advertising? Yeah, because game like Star Wars need big advertising budgets to sell well. You just don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

2
Rep
55
Offline
admin approved badge
14:02 Feb-18-2018

  1. Why are you so salty? My opinion is just as valid as yours.

  2. Can't we have a civil conversation with saying someone doesn't know what the F their talking about?

  3. So your idea is to just keep gaming as it was back when Super Mario 3 was released? Don't push the boundaries. That sucks (obviously, my opinion).

  4. Games increase in cost because gamers DO want more. Maybe not you, but most do. In order for anything to sell well these days, you have to advertise. Ever wonder why a lot of indie developers fall flat on Steam? Because they CAN'T pay for advertising. Often enough, indie games get lost in the flood of the games on Steam. If they don't get featured, they lose.

2
Rep
108
Offline
15:35 Feb-18-2018

You're wrong on so many points. I will apologize for saying you don't know what they f*ck you're talking about, but you really don't know what you're talking about. Hellblade was a highly successful game. It sells for $30 and looks amazing. They did very little advertising and it was on YouTube, the rest was word of mouth. It was the success story that proves you WRONG.

0
Rep
4
Offline
01:02 Feb-18-2018

no

1
Rep
23
Offline
00:28 Feb-18-2018

Microtransactions should never be in a 60 Dollar game adjusted for inflation.

1
Rep
125
Offline
admin approved badge
00:00 Feb-18-2018

I will get flamed for saying this, but I would rather pay full price for a complete game with no micro-transactions or DLC's. If that price is $100 or more, so be it.

4
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
10:15 Feb-18-2018

Same and this is the best alternative we have and actually should be rightfully so.


Why do I get downvoted when I say the same thing, literary...

-1
Rep
108
Offline
15:26 Feb-18-2018

You really think game companies are going to raise their prices to $100 when they can raise their prices to $100 and keep the microtransaction in them too? Are you that naive?

-2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
04:38 Feb-19-2018

do you think people are going to buy a game costing 100$ that has micro-transactions and paid DLC?

0
Rep
21
Offline
05:22 Feb-19-2018

Paid DLC, no. Microtransactions that don't effect gameplay, absolutely. I think the raising the price of the game validates not using season passes or minor expansions. Granted if you're throwing a huge massive DLC expansion after a full release, months/years to keep the game fresh, I don't see a problem with that.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:56 Feb-19-2018

Agreed, but no micro-transactions of any kind, or at the very least, no content locked behind micro-transactions that can NOT be obtained through gameplay, doesn't matter if it's cosmetic or gameplay content. Everything and I really mean everything, just name it, should be unlocked through gameplay, then micro-transactions are ok-ish, for people who just want to support companies more.


If micro-transactions limit any kind of content behind a pay-wall they are NOT OK...


And as I said NO PAID DLC and no micro-transactions(that or the ones I mentioned above), for 90-100$, everybody would be happy.

0
Rep
21
Offline
15:07 Feb-19-2018

Everybody except the companies. The money is in microtransactions. Nobody in business would cut off their largest profit maker... I agree that all content should be unlocked through gameplay, and in turn if you want to pay to get said content; fine by me. Companies need to reevaluate how they do microtransactions, but they will never get rid of them, regardless of game price.

0
Rep
10
Offline
23:24 Feb-17-2018

no never. with a lot of content being removed for microtransactions or day 1 DLCs a lot of $60 AAA games now adays dont even feel worth the $60 in the first place

1

Can They Run... |

|
APU A8-7100 Quad-Core Radeon R7 M265 12GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10700 8-Core 2.90GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 30FPS, High, 1440p
Ryzen 7 2700X Radeon RX 5600 XT Sapphire Pulse 6GB 32GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz GeForce GTX 1070 Gigabyte G1 Gaming 8GB Edition 16GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-11400F 6-Core 2.6GHz GeForce GTX 970 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 2060 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile 16GB
Ryzen 9 5900HX 8-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 9 5900HX 8-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3580U 4-Core 2.1GHz Radeon RX Vega 9 8GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-10750H 6-Core 2.60GHz GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [3 votes]
Ryzen 3 2300X 4-Core 3.5GHz Radeon RX 560 Sapphire Pulse OC 4GB 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Ryzen 5 3400G 4-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 11 6GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600H 6-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1440p
Ryzen 7 2700X Radeon RX 5600 XT Sapphire Pulse 6GB 32GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen R5 1600 AF GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Ryzen 5 3400G 4-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX Vega 11 6GB
33.3333% Yes [3 votes]
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i7-620M 2-Core 2.66GHz NVS 3100M 4GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i7-7500U 2-Core 2.7GHz GeForce 940MX 2GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core 3.7GHz Radeon RX 580 Sapphire Nitro+ 8GB 32GB
100% Yes [2 votes]