594
Nearly 90% Of Developers Surveyed Say Premium Games Don't Need Microtransactions
(insider-gaming.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
594 points (99.0% liked)
Games
16813 readers
315 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
developers handle design, not finances. Microtransactions have always been in the interest of profit, not to make the games better. They were the markets compromise with gamers being unlikely to pay enough to cover costs of a Triple A development cycle.
Reminder that when the NES came out, it was still $60 dollars for a game, which would be about $180 today. And that's not accounting for all the extra manhours that now go into the major titles. Microtransactions and DLCs are the deal with the devil we made to keep games from being $200+ a pop
Reminder that the amount of gamers worldwide has exploded since the NES came out. There is now upward of 3 billion active gamers. I guarantee you inflation grew at a slower rate.
two business partners are chatting and one says, "We're losing money on every sale", so the other one responds, "Yea, but we'll make it up in volume!"
Software costs nothing to copy and paste, only to design.
If a response would be satisfied by inserting the word "essentially," please do not make that response.
Alan Wake 2 (for example) did not spend a decade in development, but somehow blow "pretty much 100% of the budget" after launch.
You can maybe salvage that sentence fragment by insisting we're talking about multiplayer-only "live service" crap that goes on for years and years after launch... but the topic you named is distribution. The marginal cost of software is essentially zero. Supporting customer N+1 is a rounding error. Valve basically has a monopoly on PC game distribution and only employs a couple hundred people. Do those salaries cost money? No shit. But relative to, conservatively, half the money spent on PC games? Fraction of a percent.
"Keeping people employed" takes a lot of money because making a game takes a lot of people a long time. Shipping is the cheap part. Has been since CD-ROMs. In many infamous cases, people were not kept employed once their game shipped, because all those people were not necessary to make all of the money off of the game.
Your in-house guys do the next game.
Most games don't get years of full-staff support. They simply do not need the army of artists who made the whole the thing from scratch, when all that's happening post-launch are support jobs. Some games are lucky enough to get significantly more content - paid or otherwise. But they're the exceptions.
At some point, development ends. Nobody's paying the full team that made Sekiro to keep making Sekiro. Mostly they moved onto Elden Ring, and at this point, surely they've moved on from that.
That's what's "keeping people employed." They made one game. It launched. It got finished-ish, generally not long after. And then their managers put them on another game.
These games cost so much money because those higher-ups will put a thousand people on one project for years. The factors pushing budgets and scope up up up are mostly competition and marketing. Having a billion dollars to throw at a project leaves you in rarified company - which plays nicely with how spending half that money spamming one game's ads is more cost-effective than dividing it up between ten games.
Big games also enjoy a better "long tail." FromSoft can keep selling Sekiro, forever, for an upkeep cost of approximately fuck-all. No huge staff is dedicated to those files on a server. The cost of keeping them available isn't literally nothing, but it is practically nothing.
Hey, good thing that's not what I used those words for! Marginal cost is a specific economic concept. It's the cost of selling 10,000 units versus 9,999. For games? That's essentially nothing. Which is how Steam handles a supermajority of sales and distribution with a tiny little company.
Yes, neatly demonstrating how this was supposed to be a conversation about distribution.
... yes, and some of those parts are support issues, while others are not. Coders stick around for patches. Modellers, not so much. Next game.
Aaand you've deleted all your comments in this chain the very minute I opened this one. Fuck me, I guess.
Games are so damn cheap. It's insane how cheap games are now. Final Fantasy XVI is going for 50 bucks on Steam and that's an expensive release. Yesterday I bought several Disgaea games for like ten bucks each and those are a good hundred hours a pop. The top seller list on Steam right now includes multiple games cheaper than 20 bucks. And that's not even counting all the free to play stuff and the constant sales.
There are great looking and playing games out there that cost less than a movie ticket and a bucket of popcorn. I had to save for six months to get a game when I was a teenager.