[Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service (Part 1)
-
@dhg-ixxrmacxxi This actually one thing I can stand behind that Rare is doing right. Adding pets, something that is cool but not really game related, to the store is fine with me. And since they're offering the game as a service I support the idea of microtransactions. However, there are certain things that need priority, and putting off content just because you're moving this game into a service role, doesn't give you the excuse to just put things off or make content that is less topical to the games overall design.
In short, I am fine with microtransactions. But not fine with Rare using the game as a service for an excuse to skip important core components of the game like ship ownership and rich in-depth rewards and content.
-
Two people go to McDonald's and order the same meal... they've been going there for the last 5 years... person A wants extra cheese... they charge him $1.50... he pays and walks away. Person B also wants extra cheese because he paid for the meal... but he doesn't want to pay for the extra cheese. Is person B entitled to extra cheese just because he bought the same meal person A?
That analogy isnt what im advocating though, I don't think i should get it for free for nothing while someone else pays. I think there should be an option for the more dedicated players to do so.
So in your explanation, if person B is going there more and eating more then person A and the more dedicated person. Then yeah. Loyalty should always be rewarded. Its how you build a relationship with your consumers.
This is a brand new restaurant and we haven’t seen if the cheese is worth it yet 😁
-
Recall, people have recently voted with their wallets.
Sales for Star Wars: Battlefront 2 were greatly below forecasts, and the Destiny 2 population has crashed (thus leading to less revenue).
We need to remember that games used to launch with all the content in the box. You paid one price and got everything on the label.
Then they introduced DLC and microtransactions. Then the season passes. Then the lootboxes.
BTW, I'll sure as s**t buy the game, I'm just disappointed that I'll miss out on content because it's locked behind a paywall.
-
I am just here to quickly drop my opinion before I ignore this thread.
I have no problem with microtransactions and thank goodness we are not seeing loot boxes. I do have a problem with what I perceive as content like this locked behind a pay wall.
My understanding is that pets will only be purchased with real money. This is pretty much the same as saying that you can only where a hat if you purchase it as a mictrotransaction. You can only have hair if you want to pay a couple of extra bucks. I have no problem if people wanting to purchase some fancy pet, as long as I could at least earn some kind of pet in game.
Now, I will be honest and say I would also love to earn some fancy schmancy stuff in the base game. I mean, that is kind of the point of this game. If the only cool stuff is going to be achievable through additional purchases then why should I buy into it?
Anywho, that is pretty much all I have to say on the subject at this time.
-
Can you give the source for your claims?
Particularly regarding funding the game for 10 years.
How much will this cost them?
How reliant are they on microtransactions to fund this?
"the base price of the game won't be relevant in a couple of years"
Can you elaborate on this also? How will the base price not be relevant?
I look forward to your well researched points.
My main issue is what the current microtransactions will lead to.
-
I pretty much agree with Sterling's take on the game. I won't post it here because he's not the most "family friendly" character, but what it essentially boils down to is, if it's fair, if there's no BS and the game has a decent amount of value at launch, then there's no problem in supporting the post-launch roadmap with cosmetic DLC. And I'll just add that I'm pleased to hear that there won't be any loot boxes.
-
@default-tzamas said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
Recall, people have recently voted with their wallets.
Sales for Star Wars: Battlefront 2 were greatly below forecasts, and the Destiny 2 population has crashed (thus leading to less revenue).
We need to remember that games used to launch with all the content in the box. You paid one price and got everything on the label.
Then they introduced DLC and microtransactions. Then the season passes. Then the lootboxes.
BTW, I'll sure as s**t buy the game, I'm just disappointed that I'll miss out on content because it's locked behind a paywall.
I agree with that. I grew up with 8-bit and the like. Long gone are the days of full games at launch. I don't miss performing CPR on my games to get them to work, but I do miss them being complete and finished products. Microtransactions are the 'norm' now and I accept them as long as they aren't forced on me. You better believe that I'll be one of the first on the bandwagon that finally decides to stand up against this practice, but until that time, I'll buy what I like and simply opt-out of the rest. It's just that simple.
-
@capt-explodabob said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
I pretty much agree with Sterling's take on the game. I won't post it here because he's not the most "family friendly" character, but what it essentially boils down to is, if it's fair, if there's no BS and the game has a decent amount of value at launch, then there's no problem in supporting the post-launch roadmap with cosmetic DLC. And I'll just add that I'm pleased to hear that there won't be any loot boxes.
Agreed. Hell, I may even buy the MXT's if the price is fair! (I'm talking $1-2 here, don't get excited).
-
@shadowstrider-7 said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@default-tzamas said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
Recall, people have recently voted with their wallets.
Sales for Star Wars: Battlefront 2 were greatly below forecasts, and the Destiny 2 population has crashed (thus leading to less revenue).
We need to remember that games used to launch with all the content in the box. You paid one price and got everything on the label.
Then they introduced DLC and microtransactions. Then the season passes. Then the lootboxes.
BTW, I'll sure as s**t buy the game, I'm just disappointed that I'll miss out on content because it's locked behind a paywall.
I agree with that. I grew up with 8-bit and the like. Long gone are the days of full games at launch. I don't miss performing CPR on my games to get them to work, but I do miss them being complete and finished products. Microtransactions are the 'norm' now and I accept them as long as they aren't forced on me. You better believe that I'll be one of the first on the bandwagon that finally decides to stand up against this practice, but until that time, I'll buy what I like and simply opt-out of the rest. It's just that simple.
Hear hear!
-
@ant-heuser-kush said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@suave-beard said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
Long time gamer.
Former ISP owner. (retired)
Super Nerd.There is no reason that SoT couldn't be Free-To-Play as Microsoft is obtaining revenues through multiple sources on this product, namely Xbox Live requirements and micro-transactions (which are currently making more revenue for developers than actual games). On top of these two there are potential partnership/tie-in deals, merchandising, and so on.
I can assure anyone reading this that the business model has been worked out and the revenue that is expected to be generated by the micro-transactions has been forecast.
The reason Microsoft/RARE is charging $60 for this title is because they think that they can do it. Enough people have openly defended them, some reason worried about their bottom line, thus only emboldening them to ask it. God forbid you live outside the US, like in the EU, where the cost is substantially higher.
The thing is that I think SoT would have a higher chance of success if it went Free-to-play. It would also allow justification for the business model they are using.
Warframe is F2P -- great game, BTW, but I don't want to spend 400 hours grinding for materials so I can stitch me a shirt. Items in the game would be so far out of reach that spending money would be the only way to get them. Hey, you like that hook? Okay, spend $25 or grind for 1000 metal shards, 1000 pieces of wood, 1000 pieces of alloy for nails (and let's hope you have the tools to build it or you have to grind for those resources, too).
Those aren't the fault of a F2P system but of shoddy development and business decisions.
-
@ant-heuser-kush said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@suave-beard said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@ant-heuser-kush said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@suave-beard said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
Long time gamer.
Former ISP owner. (retired)
Super Nerd.There is no reason that SoT couldn't be Free-To-Play as Microsoft is obtaining revenues through multiple sources on this product, namely Xbox Live requirements and micro-transactions (which are currently making more revenue for developers than actual games). On top of these two there are potential partnership/tie-in deals, merchandising, and so on.
I can assure anyone reading this that the business model has been worked out and the revenue that is expected to be generated by the micro-transactions has been forecast.
The reason Microsoft/RARE is charging $60 for this title is because they think that they can do it. Enough people have openly defended them, some reason worried about their bottom line, thus only emboldening them to ask it. God forbid you live outside the US, like in the EU, where the cost is substantially higher.
The thing is that I think SoT would have a higher chance of success if it went Free-to-play. It would also allow justification for the business model they are using.
Warframe is F2P -- great game, BTW, but I don't want to spend 400 hours grinding for materials so I can stitch me a shirt. Items in the game would be so far out of reach that spending money would be the only way to get them. Hey, you like that hook? Okay, spend $25 or grind for 1000 metal shards, 1000 pieces of wood, 1000 pieces of alloy for nails (and let's hope you have the tools to build it or you have to grind for those resources, too).
Those aren't the fault of a F2P system but of shoddy development and business decisions.
Don't you think it would change based on a F2P model?
You don't think this game has already had direction based on micro-transactions?
People need to stop acting like this is some black-white issue, where if it went F2P it would have to be some Hell, otherwise we must pay full retail to have a decent experience.
Please.
It is called proper game design, folks. Once upon a time developers had to have it.
-
Games-As-A-Service: The State of the Gaming Industry:
A brief history
The Gaming industry is changing. Like many industries before which started out as creators making a product and building a market. Now Gaming is in the middle of an evolutionary development of moving to a service based market like all it's predicesors. Games are entertianment and like all the other enterainment industries; Art, Music, Motion Pictures it has to fit how we consume entertainment in our society which is dictated by the technology. You need only to look our history. Art was made and sold by artist those who wanted to collect and display there creation, then major galleries came along which restricted people from making, coping and sharing art because they charge the public for access . Now we have thing like devient art. Music has mucians
who got paid to peform, but later produced recording. Soon we got the ability to record we deloped the Lable which like the gallery manged artist and restricted there art in form of vynal records, then casset tapes, next CD's now we have Mp3 and services like spotyfi. Movies had flimakers, theaters, and, Major flim and tv studio's but now we have services like Netflicks and Youtube. As you can clearly see the Change from Games-as-a-Product to Games-as-Service was natural and inevitble. Now we have Xbox GamepassMonitzation and The profit motive
The gaming industry exist soley to make profit. Therefore games need to incentives you to spend your money. How it does so is refered as monitization. As a complete product games only had to play good as it was set price, then it became about looked which started hype trians. but once you bought the game that was it. Companies wanted to make more profit but how? Well lets look agian at the other industries. Music has streamed music which we pay a subscription and/or wacth Ads. Movies the same thing. We now pay for access rights to content and not for the content itself.
Now we Aready have Ads in games and we have agreement on how thats implemented which is excatly the same as the movie industry. Now like music which just get remixes, and movies that extended/directors cuts, Game content can be updated and changed. So how should "Updates" be monitized? Enter paid DLC, and Microtractions. Now understand while we can't stop this change just like you can't stop innovation or evolution. We the gamers have the power to guide this change. We have a say in how we will pay for our games but only If we have a real discussion on this topic and come to a concenses. Frist you all need to understand the Incentive structure. This what in the game that hooks players into coming to play the game and stay playing and untimatly get you to pay money to play.
So far we seen 2 versions of this. The frist they tried is locking gamplay behind a paywall using paid Expansions, Season Passes, Timed lookouts ect. I will refer to these collectivly as Peice-Mail Monitiztion and the second and newsest is Progessive Monitization which ties into player by altering gamplay experence thru things like custimization and progression. Peice-mail monitization has pretty much died as it tends to kill a games community by spliting players into groups. Now Progressive monitization has recently seen its great controversy which were LootBox and Pay-to-Win
now that the market has pushed the bounds of what us the consumers will tolarate it seem Rare and by extention Microsoft appears to have rolled back and learned and has now made us a new offer what i will call Communal Montization.
S.O.T Communal Montization is to allow players the ablity to buy visual and/or interactive objects that are cosmetic and will not affect gameplay but can be experinced by all near bye players to change the social experiance. I must say I like this idea and so far no-one else to my knownlage has offered. Now so far there will be microtransation at launch. What are your guys thoughts on this? What should our standards be for Games-As-A-Service? What should we expect from DLC? -
I don't have a problem with micro transactions as long as they don't influence gameplay; I really like how Rare isn't going to introduce micro transactions until 3 months after release but I hope that there'l be a way to earn pets with the use of in-game currency, even if it's extremely overpriced.
-
@shadowstrider-7 said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@knifelife said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@Ant-Heuser-Kush Re-read what i wrote matey :)
@ShadowStrider-7 Out of curiosity why do you not want the items to be unlockable in game?
I just feel that if I am going to spend actual money on something, Johnny-freeloader shouldn't be able to obtain it for free. Otherwise, I don't see the point of MTs at all and everything should be one massive grind.
The point of MTs here would be time savers, and to buy the Premium cosmetics you would have to grind A LOT (don't know, something like 10-15 hours to buy a monkey).
Or I don't see the point of horizontal cosmetic progression if there are some unlockable items via in game money. -
I mean Rare / Microsoft is already demanding 90$+ for this game here in Scandinavia , which in it self is a joke compared to what they presented people to in closed beta and then went HUE HUE HUE its all saved for launch, well i guess we will see about that.
But then to go ahead a few months later and add microtransactions for a game some people paid 90$+ for , just to alter your cosmetics , it aint p2w features, neither was battlefront 2 , battlefront 2 , in a 100 hours of played time you could have everygame at lvl 3 and the ones you really needed at 4 , why ? , because everyone got rewarded the same credits, whether you're the newbie with 1 kill and 20 deaths or the pro with 40+ kills and 40000 score, since credits are based upon how long you get into the match before you loose or win.
I just don't see Rare even remotely being able to justify MT , and this isnt even close to a tripple A title just because Microsoft owns Rare.
-
@scheefinator said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@shadowstrider-7 said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@knifelife said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@Ant-Heuser-Kush Re-read what i wrote matey :)
@ShadowStrider-7 Out of curiosity why do you not want the items to be unlockable in game?
I just feel that if I am going to spend actual money on something, Johnny-freeloader shouldn't be able to obtain it for free. Otherwise, I don't see the point of MTs at all and everything should be one massive grind.
The point of MTs here would be time savers, and to buy the Premium cosmetics you would have to grind A LOT (don't know, something like 10-15 hours to buy a monkey).
Or I don't see the point of horizontal cosmetic progression if there are some unlockable items via in game money.No time savers, to me that's part of shortening progression. No progression boosts or pots, to me that's infringing on progression and reeks of F2P elements.
Straight cosmetics only that benefit the community.
No crates, keys, loot boxes, etc.
yes but if pets are locked behind a pay wall, there wouldn't be progression because we couldn't buy them with in game money
and when I speak of time savers, these aren't the ones in games like clash of clans where you have to wait days until the upgrade of a build is finished, you wait for it and don't play for it
You can buy a monkey 5$ or you could grind 10-15 hours to buy it with gold: 5$ to save 10-15 hours of gameplay -
@xx-tim-toxic-xx you are wrong. Devs make the progression cosmetic but it's appearance of your character - hat/chest/trousers/boots/waist are talking to everyone about your progression and experience. Your monkey/cat will be somewhere on the boat or whatever. It's about your adventure, not adventure of your monkey.
Sorry for comparison but it would be like in wow, You can see who has full Tier 5-6-8-9 set because of his matching piecies and he could spawn pet too. Pet is saying nothing about his progression.
-
@knifelife i agree with having the cosmetics unlockable in game with out having to to pay real money to get it but I disagree with where you said that monetary purchases should be used for faster progression in game that's why people made a big deal about it with battlefront 2 because people with large amounts of disposable income shouldn't be able to boost ahead of everyone one else that is taking the time to grind to get as far as they have that's not right and it destroys the spirit of the game and the players that don't have the disposable income slowly start to leave the game because they can't keep up with the people that pay to get ahead of everyone that's just my opinion
-
@x-snozzberry-x said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
As long as it’s not 4.99 for just let’s say a hat then I don’t see anything wrong with mta’s. I’d be fine with paying 4.99 for a bundle of cosmetics (hat, shirt, jacket, pants and boots) that’s perfectly reasonable to me anyways lol.
Yeah it will really just boil down to price. As long as the price is right most people will be fine with it. I look at Fortnite which is charging $20 a pop for an outfit...crazy!!!
-
@ant-heuser-kush said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@scheefinator said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@shadowstrider-7 said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@knifelife said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@Ant-Heuser-Kush Re-read what i wrote matey :)
@ShadowStrider-7 Out of curiosity why do you not want the items to be unlockable in game?
I just feel that if I am going to spend actual money on something, Johnny-freeloader shouldn't be able to obtain it for free. Otherwise, I don't see the point of MTs at all and everything should be one massive grind.
The point of MTs here would be time savers, and to buy the Premium cosmetics you would have to grind A LOT (don't know, something like 10-15 hours to buy a monkey).
Or I don't see the point of horizontal cosmetic progression if there are some unlockable items via in game money.No time savers, to me that's part of shortening progression. No progression boosts or pots, to me that's infringing on progression and reeks of F2P elements.
Straight cosmetics only that benefit the community.
No crates, keys, loot boxes, etc.
yes but if pets are locked behind a pay wall, there wouldn't be progression because we couldn't buy them with in game money
and when I speak of time savers, these aren't the ones in games like clash of clans where you have to wait days until the upgrade of a build is finished, you wait for it and don't play for it
You can buy a monkey 5$ or you could grind 10-15 hours to buy it with gold: 5$ to save 10-15 hours of gameplayIf you do it like that, seasonal items need to remain behind a paywall. Since there will items exclusive to gameplay, there should also be items exclusive to the store. You want to spend 10-15 hours grinding so you can buy a pet, but it's not fair that I can go buy Kraken armor right out the gate. Both sides need an incentive... both sides need rare, limited items -- so people buy that item and people play that voyage.
I didn't say that kraken armor should be in premium shop, I said Premium items should be purchasable with in game money, nothing more. You pay because you want to support the game, not because you want something 100% exclusive like pets.
-
@avecrux said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx you are wrong. Devs make the progression cosmetic but it's appearance of your character - hat/chest/trousers/boots/waist are talking to everyone about your progression and experience. Your monkey/cat will be somewhere on the boat or whatever. It's about your adventure, not adventure of your monkey.
Sorry for comparison but it would be like in wow, You can see who has full Tier 5-6-8-9 set because of his matching piecies and he could spawn pet too. Pet is saying nothing about his progression.
Pets are cosmetics, a captain with a parrot doesn't look like a captain without a parrot.
-
@xx-tim-toxic-xx a parrot isn't a determinant, Nice looking/legendary looking clothes are. That's the difference. Parrot just IS, clothes are changeable.
How will you tell which pirate is better when they will wear the same clothes but 1st will have cat/2nd parrot/3rd dog/4th monkey ?
-
@ant-heuser-kush said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@avecrux said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx a parrot isn't a determinant, Nice looking/legendary looking clothes are. That's the difference. Parrot just IS, clothes are changeable.
How will you tell which pirate is better when they will wear the same clothes but 1st will have cat/2nd parrot/3rd dog/4th monkey ?
I love the jealousy. They want in-game rewards to not be purchasable, but the purchasable item should be earnable in the game... and since when does a captain need a parrot to be a captain? I'm buying a monkey.
and why would it make me jealous?
all I want is a way to have access to the pets without paying, even if I have to grind a lot -
@scheefinator said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@ant-heuser-kush said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@avecrux said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
@xx-tim-toxic-xx a parrot isn't a determinant, Nice looking/legendary looking clothes are. That's the difference. Parrot just IS, clothes are changeable.
How will you tell which pirate is better when they will wear the same clothes but 1st will have cat/2nd parrot/3rd dog/4th monkey ?
I love the jealousy. They want in-game rewards to not be purchasable, but the purchasable item should be earnable in the game... and since when does a captain need a parrot to be a captain? I'm buying a monkey.
and why would it make me jealous?
all I want is a way to have access to the pets without paying, even if I have to grind a lotYes and there are some people that would like you to not have access to those unless you pay.
They feel it cheapens what they purchased.
You have to accept both sides.
then they are egoists, I don't understand how they want other not to have access to these pets, I find it's pathetic
-
Going back to the history lesson here guys and gals.
The initial micro transactional systems were there to bridge the gap for the opposite ends of the demographic of players. This allowed players who were short on time to keep up with those who had lots of time by way of purchase, often in the lowest level of context. It was only when this was abused that we started to see the sway in MTs towards exclusive content and pay to win attitude.
For a game that preaches equality, no bounderies and cooperation RARE have made a great way of instating the old pre Thatcher esq class system. -
@scheefinator said in [Mega Thread] - Microtransactions, DLC, and Games as a Service:
Seems like we are starting to come to an agreement;
-No loot crates
-No keys
-No crates for unlock
-No boosts
-No shortening the grind
-Able to grind for pay shop items
-Paid seasonal items should stay exclusive
-Cosmetic only
-Items that benefit the community
-No wait timers
-No grinding for craft items
-No trading premium currency
-No exchanging premium currency for in gameSound about right?
Oh yes Microsoft are Heros for not having loot boxes in this game and only having MT.
Thank god for Microsoft
-
How about something a bit more current?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgAjO3It2fI
Seems even Mr. Sterling is taking a 'wait and see' approach.
-
@davejc64 I hope this will answer your question:
"There's no intent to charge for the content updates – there's no season pass, there are no DLC packs, that stuff will be delivered for free."
"It'd be the wrong move for us to put microtransactions in at launch, our focus is to get the right features in for launch, see how players are playing, and then add meaningful content where we see they're finding value. [...] Anything we do around microtransactions will never jeopardize the progression of the game, will never make any of the elements of progression feel meaningless, it'll never be anything "pay to win," which is so alien to what we're trying to do in Sea of Thieves. It will be ways for players to express their love of the game. There will never be loot crates in Sea of Thieves."