...what kind of "the reason is the cause" argument is this??
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Jimquisition: The Sinister Reasons For Adding Microtransactions After Launch
- Thread starter fhqwhgads
- Start date
It's not really about games being expensive to make. It's about growth and shareholders.
A bit surreal seeing the same Jim that once publicly wished EA would go out of business (which would cost lots of folks their jobs) ending his video with calling out folks for being toxic to some devs.
Wasn't CTR $40 at retail? I thought the rhetoric used to be MTX were acceptable In games that aren't full priced?
Games, their budgets and expectations can wildly differ.
Wasn't CTR $40 at retail? I thought the rhetoric used to be MTX were acceptable In games that aren't full priced?
Games, their budgets and expectations can wildly differ.
There's way too many games that have been produced by independent studios over the past few years that aren't $60, and have no MTX that become favorites of gamers and critics over some very well known AAA titles. Stuff like Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, and Undertale come to mind. MTX aren't just about gambling tactics either. Forced social networking, "pay us or grind for an obnoxious amount of hours" gameplay are just two off the top of my head ways that MTX has become a very big issue even in single player modes. Hell, I can't even play the NBA 2K series anymore because it's more MTX ads than actual gameplay.
Glad the Jim keeps on in his inquisition against predatory monetization and gambling in the game industry. Hope his content is reaching those who are still not so well informed about this practices, specially parents.
I hope the new COD has 15-20 maps online. I feel burned by Battlefield 5 having like 8 maps only on day 1 and waiting months for like 2 more maps.
Sure, but that impact is nearly impossible to gauge, and wouldn't be enough to justify delaying your MTX.
I don't want to pay more for videogame so I'm okay with having vulnerable people bank them for me. Activision has to make their yearly 2 billions in profit!
In Crash? Published by Activision? With an online component?
Absolutely.
Publishers will make sure you get both. $100dlls games with MTX.
The idea that MTXs will disappear when the price of games rise is laughable
Everytime someone unironically suggests that companies will leave money on the table voluntarily I laugh and simultaneously die a little inside.
Some of the usual retorts I'm seeing in here though.
"Games have to be more expensive" (They don't)
"Gotta pay the devs" (They don't)
"We should expect them from games" (No)
The idea that companies like Activision and Rockstar can avoid paying taxes while getting huge tax breaks on the backs of consumers and still beg for more is why I'll never side with corporations over people. As Jim says, it's never enough to make money. You have to make ALL the money.
What I don't get with CoD is why it's added after release/reviews.
99% of reviews don't mention anything of the mtx systems in place nor would they penalise the game massively for the system they add.
Black Ops 4 would straight up be a 3/10 game if they did.
That's probably true. I wish there was more transparency into cost that goes into games like we have with movies.
I am not expert, but isn't movies budget and profit also super shady? Hollywood accounting and all that stuff?
Probably not with the kind of presentation and aesthetics he goes for. Hell most parents would skip this particular video in the first seconds. If he wants to reach broader audiences, he needs to tone down the violence, the sex jokes, ditch the nazi-like aesthetics.
I love Jim as much as the next guy, but his presentation appeals to a very specific niche.
Valid criticism ≠hate. Criticising predatory and scummy business practices has nothing to do with hate. Please.
MRW people don't think modern warfare is going to have egregious MTX just because they said so
*breathes in*
After the joke they pulled with saying "no loot boxes in Black Ops 4!" and then adding "Reserve Cases" (loot boxes) I'm pretty much done with Activison and COD now.
On the one hand, your lips to god's ears -- on the other hand, part of the reason this is an issue is that a lot of publishers who own studios are putting their financial eggs in a lot fewer baskets, and this has coupled itself with a creative stagnation. Make a big, shiny game that people who liked the last one will like, and make it a service so that you don't just make the same amount of money on the audience you had last time, get them to keep paying you for stuff. Stop funding other stuff and instead just consolidate your development efforts -- it costs the same but has the potential to be a much more reliable revenue stream.
I don't know if this is the video I watched a while back making this argument, but it's a good one that goes on in this point in greater detail.
They said the same thing for BO3 and people still believed for BO4
Yes they do. You might be more price insensitive to MTX, but that's not typical behavior.
And here's a dev post refuting the points in that video:
https://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/167200111597/a-youtuber-named-tarmack-recently-made-a-video
So when the inevitable MTX-laden $100 videogames start dropping, what's the excuse then?
Too many people think "selling something for too much money" is exploitative to agree with this. I suspect Jim does. That's why he rails against $20 skins in games like they're a human rights violation instead of just being a bad value offer.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. A company making a luxury good and selling it for $X is not exploitative just because someone wants the thing for less than $X.
How to avoid
on your retail box.
It really is a disgusting practice. Good on pegi to atleast update the rating on their website.
This is real? Cool, I'm impressed.
Edit: Oh only the updated rating? At least something.
Might also increase the "metacritic" score. Avoids bad press at release etc.
Could also just be a coincidence.
They aren't? Then what about artificial limitations? Like Battle Passes and item stores with time "limited" items.
That's also an awful predatory consumer practice.
I'm not clear what they're actually refuting here. That people play microtransactions because lootboxes make them feel good? That's, like, the whole point of lootboxes and part of what makes them so sinister! Getting close to a 'win' on a game of skill tends to excite portions of the brain associated with excitement and winning and joy and whatnot, and serves as a means of reinforcement in favor of further skill development. In an oversimplified way of expressing it, the brain is trying to signal to you, "You're so close! You can do it!" But the problem is that the brain is bad at measuring how random something is, and randomness tends to short-circuit these mechanisms -- which is a major reason why we have the notion of confirmation bias. When something that's built from multiple random components gets really close to a win, like a slot machine where 2 of the 3 sevens line up, it gets those same brain juices flowing. Slot machines and lootboxes worsen this effect by being so flashy and sensory-intensive. It's meant to be overwhelming and hyperstimulating, because that just increases the potency of these effects.
see also https://www.wired.com/2011/03/the-near-miss-effect/
Obviously the market is huge and technically still growing, but now the concentration by resources of major publishers means that most of the people who'd be making those more experimental, riskier games are all turning to a more independent market. This isn't great for the market in general because now there isn't the level of financial backing that allows the people making these games to eat the risk if they take a loss on what they're making. The Cuphead developers had put their house on the line for the sake of development, and they're one of the few success stories out there (and, yes, got that sweet sweet Microsoft money).
The thing is, sustainable development for indie folks also looks a lot like games-as-a-service because it's all through monthly donations in services like patreon. There the revenue stream is both consistent and meant to be more reliable long-term (since you're unlikely to face huge drops in patronage on the level of what a studio layoff would represent).
I cannot imagine MTX being a worthwhile infrastructure to invest in, unless you are selling something with brand recognition. If you are selling only cosmetics in particular, you had better hope the game itself has content to keep a customer engaged. If you are playing Call of Duty and plan to invest hundreds of hours into it, then buying a gold-skin for your knife makes sense. Anything less seems like wasted effort and funds.
I think we will see MTX decline proportional to GaaS trends. Building and maintaining these juggernaut live service titles is becoming a losing battle for all but handful of publishers. The market is too crowded and these games are designed to eat all of your time and money, which is finite. Coming into the market now, thinking you can make something people give a shit about enough to buy MTX is insane.
The Gold Rush is over. If you aren't Valve, Microsoft, Riot, Epic, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard, or EA... good luck.
I think we will see MTX decline proportional to GaaS trends. Building and maintaining these juggernaut live service titles is becoming a losing battle for all but handful of publishers. The market is too crowded and these games are designed to eat all of your time and money, which is finite. Coming into the market now, thinking you can make something people give a shit about enough to buy MTX is insane.
The Gold Rush is over. If you aren't Valve, Microsoft, Riot, Epic, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard, or EA... good luck.
Oh come on. Cosmetic mtx?
When you walk into any physical store those items are time limited too.
As far as I know Battle Passes are retroactive. You can rank up the free one and when you buy the premium it will give you all the stuff you've already hit. I think the only exclusive you get for buying early is premium challenges.
And once again, all cosmetic. Premium benefits/time exclusives isn't a solely video game thing.
D3 and D7 revenue are key metrics for user acquisition. So no, you're wrong.
Apex Legends made $90 million in its first month. Black Ops 4 didn't have a MTX shop in that same period.
Yeah, that's what I'm referring to when I say it's to improve perception.
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess he turns many people off with all the weirdness in his videos. I'm fine with all the aesthetics and most of his jokes, but I would certainly keep following his content even if he toned down these aspects.
I've been following Jim since he started on Destructoid, and he has always been one of my favorite reviewers/critics (a shame he quit writing after all that rage against his BotW review). He always had his public, but the kind of content he is producing now is certainly something that deserved to be exposed to a broader audience.
Ah, the good old "it's just cosmetics" bullshit line.
We're done here.
I wasn't interested in all the jetpack stuff so I didn't follow BO3 at all during its time, but I did give it a try after BO4 released and the ridiculous amount of monetization in it really gave me a sense of how bad COD had (and has) become.
I wonder how Activision tries to stablish a big playerbase that purchases microtransactions when most of those players know they'll jump on the next title in 12 months. I know I'd perceive more value in buying something in Apex Legends than I would in Blackout because before Blackout was out we already knew there were two other Call of Duty games in development to be out in 12 and 24 months approx. Like how can a player get a feeling of ownership of all his digital stuff knowing it will just sit dead in the inventory of a game they'll drop for the new installment.
The video you posted is missing alot of stuff and is not "great" when it's relaying wrong info. I'm not sure what point you are making either, being in the indie scene was always more risky and allowed more freedom, the big publishers have always made the lionshare of the profits, that hasn't changed, what has changed is that the large publishers are still making the big games which make most of the sales, they've just also stopped making a large amount of games, alot of which wasn't really that creative and could often be shovel ware, that didn't make a profit. And MTX does not just equal loot box either.
Yeah, we are.
I've honestly had too many of these fights on ERA.
As far as multiplayer games go, the MTX age is the best thing to happen.
I remember not being able to play with my friends because someone didn't have a map pack. Or we were limited to like 2 playlists. I remember having to buy constant updates to get new content. The 360/PS3 era of MP gaming was shit because of that.
This gen, for the most part, multiplayer games have free, continuous updates and support and I don't have to pay a dime if I don't need to. But sometimes if something looks dope, and I enjoy the game, I'll toss some money to bling out.
Lootboxes need to be regulated/reduced because it truly is gambling. (I personally don't mind it, but I do see how it can be very problematic)
Apex Legends is my new shit and I have paid $0.00 to play one of my recent favorite games. It's the main game I used to keep in touch with my out of state friends.
I paid 90 bucks for Chrono Trigger. I'll gladly pay more for games if these devs stop trying to get their grubby fucking hands on my wallet AFTER I have already paid for my product. The hell with devs that pull this shit. Great video, Jim is on point with this one.
Good for you, but people are different. I highly disagree with most what you said.
Anyway, since we are in a Jim Sterling thread, I will just leave this here. Worth a watch.
For what it's worth, while still scummy, microtransactions on free games much less scummy than microtransactions on paid games.
You want to give away your game like Fortnite and support it with microtransactions? It can still be predatory, sure, but when you paid nothing for it upfront it's a lot less offensive.
Want to charge $60 for your game like Overwatch, Battlefront, or CallaDooty and then have the nads to nickel and dime your customers afterward? Well fuck you, good sir.
You want to give away your game like Fortnite and support it with microtransactions? It can still be predatory, sure, but when you paid nothing for it upfront it's a lot less offensive.
Want to charge $60 for your game like Overwatch, Battlefront, or CallaDooty and then have the nads to nickel and dime your customers afterward? Well fuck you, good sir.
I just haven't heard anyone come up with a better solution for MP games. People on Era against direct cosmetic MTX either claim years of support and content updates can be easily funded by the $60 price tag (lol) or we should actually go back to map packs and DLC expansions that segregate the player base.