Micro-transactions, Games As a Service, and Full Retail?

Yet you forgot to mention that all DLC and season pass will be free for as long as the game is supported with no cost past the main purchase of the game. So that has to be paid for some where. The micro transaction give them the funds to do this. No one is saying you have to pay for anything in game. This also as no advantage in game towards play.

@canadianmuscle3 said in Micro-transactions, Games As a Service, and Full Retail?:

Yet you forgot to mention that all DLC and season pass will be free for as long as the game is supported with no cost past the main purchase of the game. So that has to be paid for some where. The micro transaction give them the funds to do this. No one is saying you have to pay for anything in game. This also as no advantage in game towards play.

No, no I didn't forget to mention future DLC. It is covered in the "Games As a Service" aspect of this.

As a many decades gamer, that owned an ISP before retiring out, I can emphatically state that both models I discussed covered their costs. You don't need to worry about a Microsoft backed endeavor when it comes to financials.

This young generation of consumers/gamers needs to stop with the "But what about our poor developers?!" They know how to run a business, and if they don't, they won't stay open. RARE themselves has been through it before and would survive again. Either way, as the consumer it isn't our concern for the health of the Corporation. The concern needs to be on what is being returned for the money provided.

@katttruewalker said in Micro-transactions, Games As a Service, and Full Retail?:

@suave-beard said in Micro-transactions, Games As a Service, and Full Retail?:

It is difficult to agree with the idea of having a full retail price on a game, while at the same time going the route of a "service", that is ultimately supported by micro-transactions (milking-transactions).

When we bring in monetization systems, it won't impact power, it won't impact progression – people will know what they're buying – so no loot crates.
Entirely optional, it's up to you if you wish to spend the additional money.
Sea of Thieves and the future: Ditching loot crates for pirate pet pals, DLC plans, and more

$60 per copy just to get access to pay more money for full content is an issue. The entire business and in-game model that Rare/Microsoft is taking with SoT is that of a Free-To-Play game. Today's lifting of the embargo on media only further drives that home

Same article
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.
We have the ability to release almost daily, at the moment we've been releasing weekly. We might not do it every week at live, looking at value of smaller updates vs. larger projects, but, when we look at things that just enrich the game experience, so, customizable underwear, for example, that might be something that as soon as we have it, we'll just turn it on.

Yet, it isn't a F2P game, they are asking full retail for it. To be fair and clear about the matter it must be said that there is nothing wrong with a F2P model that is supported by vanity based micro-transactions. However, developers need to start choosing which model they want to use! The traditional full-retail approach, and thus provide a functioning complete product. Or, the "Games As a Service" approach, using the software as the foundation for the service with the costs being recouped via the micro-transactions. The double dipping needs to stop.

I don't regard this as double dipping at all, the game on release will contain far more content than we've seen in the Closed Beta and judging from what has been released in articles today, content that will keep players engaged until the first new additions. Besides this, no one needs to pay full price, they can sample the game via GamePass and decide later
When I look at success for us, as a business, one is revenue coming in, obviously. Actually being one of the top-played games in Game Pass would be a success for us as a business too. It means we're driving engagement with Game Pass, means we're probably driving more people towards Games Pass. As a platform, as a strategy, and as Xbox, that's one of our goals too. To drive engagement with Xbox and Windows platforms.

While it is noteworthy, and commendable, that they are not having loot boxes and are avoiding selling power. It is equally noteworthy how lacking the "base" game is and that it isn't a $60 title. It is very clear that SoT has been built as a revenue stream where business matters are concerned, again, nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem is that in doing so you give up claim to a $60 price tag.

I disagree. There are so many options they could have gone down - subscription, free to play with essential items hidden behind a paywall, paid DLC, Season Passes, psychological manipulation to encourage additional spending etc etc Of all of these, I think Rare have made the best choices with a view to longevity and having read and listened to the many debates we've had here within the Community. There is no easy answer, but I'm happy with the one they've chosen.

When we do that first major update a few months after launch, that's when we'll bring in the option for players to spend more money. The focus at launch should be launch, the game experience, no distractions for us, but then we move to our service operation, I will have a team of people who are still working on Sea of Thieves. I have to look at that and think about additional revenue streams.

Again, I already addressed this in its whole.

@drbullhammer said in Micro-transactions, Games As a Service, and Full Retail?:

@suave-beard if they went the traditional route, then you would have to pay for DLC. The way they're doing it, people like you can get full access to the game and all DLC without paying more than the initial $60.

No, again, this is a fallacy.

With the games as a "service" model, and remember you are talking to a person who owned an Internet Service Provider, they most certainly would not have to charge for future "DLC", let alone the initial game itself. The idea that it isn't profitable to operate on micro-transactions alone is absurd.

Back in November of 2017, Ubisoft's micro-transaction revenue was GREATER than their digital sales. When you factor in that the nominal cost of a Bit is zero dollars, that is pretty sweet profit! Electronic Arts? $1.68 Billion in just micro-transactions FY17.

......

Again, people defending the wallet of a Multi-billion dollar backed business endeavor. Just stop.

This is about RARE wanting full retail for what is a F2P game and business model.

1. Microtransaction don't touch the content that's earned in the game, they are there for items unrelated to quest rewards and endgame items.

2. F2P isn't the only way a game should be allowed to monetize post launch, you're getting all the content in the game + all the post game launch content (DLC) for that $60. It's hardly fair to come down on Rare about charging players $2 for novelty pets or potions that turn you into a squid for an hour.

Another way of putting it....