Game Theory: MicroBucks
Posted 08/18/09 at 02:00:42 PM by Thomas McDonald
Some gamers treat the mere idea of microtransactions with contempt.
“Pshaw!” they snort, “like I’d pay real money to buy horse armor in Oblivion….” And then they usually trail off into a semi-coherent rant about their rights as gamers and greedy corporate pigs.
But microtransactions—which allow you to spend a few dollars on things to enhance a game, such as extra weapons or spells—are here to stay, and gamers just need to come to terms with that.
My little epiphany came when I took my son to the local Games Workshop store for some Warhammer love. There, spread out before me on shelves crammed with figures, books, paints, and all the rest of the paraphernalia of the hobby, was the world of microtransactions writ large.
Back in the day (as I say when I want to clear a room), if you wanted to play as Eldar, you bought the Eldar books and figures separately (and spent at least $100). If you wanted to play as the Chinese in Advanced Squad Leader, you bought Gung Ho! (about $50). Collectable card games? Booster packs.
It’s only in PC and video gaming that we expect to get everything in one neat little package, and then bitch if it isn’t all there. How many times have we read, “$20 is too much to pay for 10 levels and a new race”? I’ve written it myself. We’ve gotten spoiled.
BattleForge, a nifty collectible card game/RTS game mashup, drove that point home for me. For the base price, you get the game and 3,000 points to spend on booster packs or other enhancements. If you burn through that, you can buy $5 worth of points, which will get you a couple of booster packs to expand your deck. We’re likely to see more of this.
I’m not defending RPGs where entire classes are nerfed unless you pay extra money, or designs that punish people who don’t spend extra. But the future of PC gaming will likely be driven by the “Korean model,” in which hardcore gamers spend extra to support a game and expand their experience, while more casual gamers pay less or nothing at all for a simpler experience. The question will be: Which kind of gamer are you?
Thomas L. McDonald has been covering games for 17 years. He is Editor-at-Large of Games Magazine.
I think this is going to be a niche market
Submitted by Zazubovich on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 11:52am
I think that with the other revenue streams in games today, including product merchandise tie-ins, movie tie-ins, in-game ads, and the marketing of associated products in a line (with Wii you can buy other games on line in minutes), in game microtransactions are going to be just one additional tool for making some games more profitable and for creating new hacking goals. There will always be grognard games and other special interest games like flight sims, railroad sims, and fantasy/first person shooters that might not lend themselves to microtransactions or might not want them as part of their revenue stream. They might not integrate well across platforms and could lend themselves to theft and fraud. And the author's special favorite category, the military sim designed to numb kids to virtual slaughter so as to con them into the military, probably won't have microtransactions. Think of all the kids sitting in boxes in Florida, flying Predator drones for the CIA, glad they don't have suffer through ads or pay money to blow up random people in Afghanistan and Iraq with Hellfire missiles through a computer interface.
If you remember how easy it was to clone moneybags in Diablo, think how fun it would be to rip real money off from the DS or gameboy of passerby at the airport, or WOW money from kids at the lanparty at the mall.
I'm not sure about every
Submitted by neo1piv14 on Thu, 08/20/2009 - 6:02am
I'm not sure about every type of game out there, but I'd be willing to pay 5 or 10 bucks for a Counter Strike: Source 'booster pack.' Maybe even like 15 if they released some upgraded textures, a few new guns, and maybe some more character models and official maps just so long as everything was balanced for those people who didn't pay the extra. It wouldn't make the game unplayable for those that didn't want to pay it, but it's an easy way for a company to extend the life of a game.
Terrible idea
Submitted by fnordfnord on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 1:51am
The Korean model, huh? Wherein companies expect to reap millions of dollars in profits off of gamers' desire to have cool hats, coats, unicorn-mobiles and sparkly baloons on their in-game avatars? What a horrible idea! These games all lack content, the only thing they have going for them is their in-game economies, which are driven by the same folks seen on Jerry Springer every day.
Good riddance to the causal gamer, let them eat up that crap to fund development of hard-core titles where GAMEPLAY rules all!
haha Warhammer 40k!
Submitted by DOOMHAMMA on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 7:38pm
I love that stuff! Got a Tyranid and Space Marine army, and I also have a few Eldar and Tau models. Good stuff. But you are completely right. Micro Payments are quickly becoming standard, and with digital distribution, there is no way around it anymore. Heck, even with Expansion Packs, video game companies were already doing this. Expansion packs have just been renamed to DLC :P
It depends upon where the
Submitted by aviaggio on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 6:08pm
It depends upon where the line is drawn. I take issue with paying for the game, and paying the monthly fee to play the game, and then being expected to pay even more to "unlock" non-trivial aspects of the game. That's not right. If you want to offer extras for people with burning holes in their pockets that's fine. Just don't make it required to compete with them.
Since selling WOW gold makes
Submitted by Duall on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 2:05pm
Since selling WOW gold makes $300 million per year (according to Wired) Blizzard should just cash in and sell gold to it's members.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






