Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

I was just thinking something like this.
Single player games seem to be a niche kind of thing.

The big money and the big time investment is being spent on games that players will put months or years into.

I bet there are plenty of folk out there who have spent more money in Fortnite in the 3 years since release than I have spent on my entire gaming library in the same period of time.

Its not really about being niche, SP games are a lot like books.
They often don't offer instantaneous gratification, requiring a degree of investment in terms of time and thought in order to feel fullfiling.

Many people nowadays, when looking for entertainment, want things that can immediatly give them a "high". It can be by getting likes from a post they make in social media, or by watching a 30 second cat video.

Multiplayer games capitalize on that search for instantaneous gratification, be by obtaining an item in some looter, or putting in a headshot in some competitive shooter. And they do it over and over, some even making it easier for you the get the "high" at first in order to get you addicted, then proceeding to make getting that high harder as you play in a way that "encourages" the player to spend money so they can "feel good" again.

Man, I just don't understand the appeal of spending money to get cosmetics.
It doesn't feel like good value for money at all. 15 bucks for a character skin etc.

I feel like DLC is also a bit overpriced.
Deluxe editions add very little but cost like 10 bucks more

This is games capitalizing on the social front.
As social platforms, MP games (and even SP games some times) are also means of expression of one's individuality, kinda like how we choose our user names and avatars in forums like this, though games take some steps further than that.
They essentially say "if you want to express yourself to your peers in the form of this skin or item, pay X". Its a very exploitative but also effective tactic.

 

[Psos]

Core gamers hate microtransactions, I hate it too. Only one I paid for the item in Dota 2, but it's free to play game, that now I avoid.

 

[Virt McPolygon]

That's a lot of money to spend in order to see your favorite character asses in new outfits.

 

[Rikkori]

Hah, thought to myself - probably 3 quarters, and that's what it was. Tho I did see numbers about over the past years so I guess it was not much of a guess.

 

[Bragr]

Safe from pay-to-win MTX, I have zero problems with Microtransactions.

If someone wants to pay for cosmetics why would it bother me? Not my money. No one is forcing them, is it? An, apparently, lots of people are willing to spend money on MTX.
Good for them and for the companies apparently providing a service that is in high demand.



Well, no one is in a position to assess other than devs themselves, who have the figures in front of them.

Developers can ask and charge as much as they want for a title. You then decide if it's too much for your wallet. The point is that if their profit margin is to remain the same but people are calling for extended development cycles, then basic math kicks in.

I don't have a big issue either at the moment, but it's more about the future. When games like Fortnite, Rouge Company, and Valorant and every free-to-play multiplayer game is making hundreds of millions on battle passes, the industry will move in that direction. Meaning, major franchises will go the route of Rainbow Six, turning itself into a service that won't change but only keep on spewing out cosmetics and seasons for people to invest in.

People forget how old games like LOL, WOW, Overwatch, Rocket League and all this stuff really is, it's old content that's making more money than games like Ghosts of Tsushima, because they mastered the art of making people throw 5 to 10 dollars at them every month, rather than 60 bucks upfront. It's the future of the industry, it's the mobile game model, and I hope it doesn't eat up more big franchises than it already has.

 

[Lethal01]

And yet, their top three best selling games are GAAS multiplayer. You don't think leadership at Nintendo is looking where the industry is headed in the next 3-5 years?

Single player isn't going anywhere, but the market for GAAS is expanding at an alarming rate. The single player market isn't keeping pace.

What MTX does Mario Kart have?

 

[Jigsaah]

WHAT ARE WE DOING!?

 

[Woggleman]

This is why I am so hard on GTA V. It's one thing for a game like Fortnite which was built from the ground up to be a MTX machine to have them but to take one of the best SP franchises of the 2000s and turn it into that to me is damn near criminal.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

Yes, a higher base price means that a company has more to lose by going free to play and missing out on that initial payment.

Increasing the base price means more games that would make more money by charging that base price rather than going f2p.

No, I said evidence. Can you name some games that were intended to be FTP but weren't because they were sold at a higher price instead?

 

[ThatStupidLion]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Its not really about being niche, SP games are a lot like books.
They often don't offer instantaneous gratification, requiring a degree of investment in terms of time and thought in order to feel fullfiling.

Many people nowadays, when looking for entertainment, want things that can immediatly give them a "high". It can be by getting likes from a post they make in social media, or by watching a 30 second cat video.

Multiplayer games capitalize on that search for instantaneous gratification, be by obtaining an item in some looter, or putting in a headshot in some competitive shooter. And they do it over and over, some even making it easier for you the get the "high" at first in order to get you addicted, then proceeding to make getting that high harder as you play in a way that "encourages" the player to spend money so they can "feel good" again.


This is games capitalizing on the social front.
As social platforms, MP games (and even SP games some times) are also means of expression of one's individuality, kinda like how we choose our user names and avatars in forums like this, though games take some steps further than that.
They essentially say "if you want to express yourself to your peers in the form of this skin or item, pay X". Its a very exploitative but also effective tactic.

Quite the opposite actually.

Single player games thrive on the "power fantasy". They throw hundreds, if not thousands of incredibly weak, stupid, and predictable AI in front of the player so that the player feels immediate gratification. Even difficult games like Demon's Souls still operate on that power fantasy. They are easy games that feed players obnoxious amounts of kills so that the player feels good about themselves. Not only that, but single player games also "feed" players crude cutscenes that reward the feeling of fake progression. The player thinks "I must be doing good because I'm advancing the story", when in actuality these developers do everything in their power to keep the player playing. The game is rigged FOR the player.

Multiplayer is competition. Getting kills in Battle Royale games, or goals in Rocket League etc require a true (slow) mastery of the game mechanics. That's why getting 5 kills in a MOBA is so much more satisfying than killing 5 AI in Uncharted 2. These games do much less to babysit the player. The only way you advance in such games are actually becoming better at the game.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What MTX does Mario Kart have?

"GAAS multiplayer" was my quote.

You said "MTX".

All three concepts differ from one another.

 

[Skifi28]

I'd rather not put DLC and lootboxes together. Many games with proper expansions are considered DLC these days and I imagine they sell well too, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Fuz]

 

[intbal]

Always has been game vs. game.

We are returning to the Atari / NES era where you played just 2-3 games for months or years before get a new one. The circle is closing.

There was no rental store where you lived?
I played one new NES game per week.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

I'd rather not put DLC and lootboxes together. Many games with proper expansions are considered DLC these days and I imagine they sell well too, nothing wrong with that.

Wouldn't you prefer that those 'expansions' just be in the base game?

 

[Black_Stride]

The vocal minority still shocked they are the minority?

 

[The_Mike]

Don't know if I should laugh or cry?

 

[Skifi28]

Wouldn't you prefer that those 'expansions' just be in the base game?

I'd prefer all sequels are in the base game too and trees made of money grow in my garden.


There's no way to prove if something was cut from the main game to be sold seperately or not, it's a pointless argument. If you think the content is worth the money then you buy it, if not you don't.

 

[TKOFromTokyo]

Looking the chart, 49% of sales $ are mobile. That should explain a huge chunk of the in game purchase revenue. I think the OP is a little misleading. The numbers are skewed because of this and don’t necessarily translate to the same split for consoles and PC. With that said, of course devs and publishers are trying to push in game purchases. It makes it easier to reduce the barrier to entry by lowering the initial purchase price and then hooking players into their ecosystem and slowly draining them of funds through MTX and dlc.They want recurring revenue streams.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

I'd prefer all sequels are in the base game too and trees made of money grow in my garden.

Really? Did trees made of money used to grow in your garden? Because, get this, not too long ago expansions didn't exist!

 

[Skifi28]

Really? Did trees made of money used to grow in your garden? Because, get this, not too long ago expansions didn't exist!

Uhm, what? Expansions have been a thing since the 90s, probably before that too. Being able to download them instead of having a boxed copy doesn't change much. Even back then there were shitty expansions that felt like a cut sliced from the main game. Nothing has changed.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

Uhm, what? Expansions have been a thing since the 90s, probably before that too. Being able to download them instead of having a boxed copy doesn't change much. Even back then there were shitty expansions that felt like a cut sliced from the main game. Nothing has changed.

The 90s isn't long ago. "Nothing has changed" is a preposterous thing to say. How many 'expansions' did you see then? How many do you see now?

 

[Durask]

Same reason why MS cares less about number of consoles sold and more about money that each Xbox owner spends.
One Xbox owner with Game Pass Ultimate who whales on a couple of games is worth a hundred Xbox owners who buy 2-3 games a year.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Looking the chart, 49% of sales $ are mobile. That should explain a huge chunk of the in game purchase revenue. I think the OP is a little misleading. The numbers are skewed because of this and don’t necessarily translate to the same split for consoles and PC. With that said, of course devs and publishers are trying to push in game purchases. It makes it easier to reduce the barrier to entry by lowering the initial purchase price and then hooking players into their ecosystem and slowly draining them of funds through MTX and dlc.They want recurring revenue streams.

I'd be willing to bet that console + PC revenue isn't far behind mobile. I'd also be willing to bet Jim Ryan, Phil Spencer, and Shuntaro Furukawa think about "in game purchases" a ton right now.

Fortnite has primed the console audience to spend money in games. It's successors will no doubt capitalize on that now that it's been normalized.

 

[THEAP99]

It's over.

 

[Captain Toad]

Is this including mobile gaming? I consider that a seperate (mostly, terrible) entity.

 

[B-universe]

Wouldn't you prefer that those 'expansions' just be in the base game?

I'm sorry, but what kind of a question is that?

Would I prefer Bethesda put out massive open-world bug-free AAA games where every rock is handcrafted, every quest handwritten, for free, no, with Bethesda paying me to play their games?

Sure.

AAA development is expensive and companies are looking to turn a profit. Them turning a profit entails a certain content to charged dollar ratio, If AAA developers fail to meet these ratios, investors might have not have invested in the first place and studios wouldn't have been formed and games wouldn't have been developed, which is what might happen if enough people adopt the attitude of wanting everything at little to no cost and by tomorrow morning, if you please.

What tends to happen to capital once it finds more profitable destinations?

If I were to compile the wishes routinely expressed on gaming forums, I'd list:

- Longer development cycles with no crunch.
- Huge games, with expansions already bundled in.
- Constant prices
- No microtransactions
- Good developer wages

Paradise on Earth, no less.

Surely you realise these are hard to juggle if a company not only wants to turn a profit, but wants to attract and retain capital, no?

 

[Skifi28]

The 90s isn't long ago. "Nothing has changed" is a preposterous thing to say. How many 'expansions' did you see then? How many do you see now?

Do I have to say specific numbers? Compare all the expansions, say in the 90s, vs now? Why? Hundreds of games have had expansions before the "DLC" thing. Do more games have now? Perhaps, perhaps not. Do we need to make list wars? Are you making a specific point? I think you're trying too hard to prove something that can't be proven, or doesn't even need to.

Many things have changed since the 80s and 90s, including the popularity of gaming as well as the volume of games being produced. You couldn't prove back then if an expansion was supposed to be part of the main game that got cut and you still can't prove it now. Vote with your wallet like you did back then, tons of good stuff worth buying.

 

[MiguelItUp]

It's so gross, lmao.

This will never stop either, especially when games like Fortnite are so successful. Because they'll continue to chase/ride success, and other developers/publishers will attempt to follow.

F2P games are great, essentially. The problem is that so many players either "can't" or don't limit how much they put into the game or spend on it. To each their own, but personally, I make sure I never spend what I feel is just in a F2P title. Majority of the time I feel it's fair to float it around the standard MSRP, especially if it's something I'm really enjoying. It's just wild to think that for some people an enjoyable F2P title can REALLY be a time and money sink that just sucks away at them until the servers go down or they're able to walk away.

 

[TKOFromTokyo]

I'd be willing to bet that console + PC revenue isn't far behind mobile. I'd also be willing to bet Jim Ryan, Phil Spencer, and Shuntaro Furukawa think about "in game purchases" a ton right now.

Fortnite has primed the console audience to spend money in games. It's successors will no doubt capitalize on that now that it's been normalized.

I do agree with you that this revenue split is coming for consoles and PCs. It’s more profitable and can get a larger audience with lower entry costs for consumers as games get discounted heavily now a days.

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

Do I have to say specific numbers? Compare all the expansions, say in the 90s, vs now? Why? Hundreds of games have had expansions before the "DLC" thing. Do more games have now? Perhaps, perhaps not. Do we need to make list wars? Are you trying to make a specific point? I think you're trying too hard to prove something that can't be proven, or doesn't even need to.

You said nothing has changed in terms of expansions since the 90s. I couldn't disagree more. Most games have some form of them these days. That didn't used to be the case.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Not sure why people are blaming the industry. It isn't the industry that spent all that money, it is consumers. Evidently a significant portion of the market wants to buy in-game content. The industry is merely addressing that demand.

 

[Bodomism]

"GAAS multiplayer" was my quote.

You said "MTX".

All three concepts differ from one another.

You get everything with $59.99. service what?

 

[Mr Moose]

Fucking Genshin Impact

 

[Guilty_AI]

Quite the opposite actually.

Single player games thrive on the "power fantasy". They throw hundreds, if not thousands of incredibly weak, stupid, and predictable AI in front of the player so that the player feels immediate gratification. Even difficult games like Demon's Souls still operate on that power fantasy. They are easy games that feed players obnoxious amounts of kills so that the player feels good about themselves. Not only that, but single player games also "feed" players crude cutscenes that reward the feeling of fake progression. The player thinks "I must be doing good because I'm advancing the story", when in actuality these developers do everything in their power to keep the player playing. The game is rigged FOR the player.

The take on it being a power fantasy is often incorrect, nobody plays DOOM and feels like they're some awesome demon killer. Heck, what power fantasy is in a game like Mario?

What you're talking about can be mostly related to games that rely on hype to be sold.
These games are often "rigged", as you put it, because they don't really need any challenge or thoughtful story, they just need to be functional and give a decent sense of progression regardless of the players skills or thoughtfulness.
The "high" the player feels in those games doesn't come from a power fantasy, nor from any particular challenge. Its the result of months - years - of marketing and hype. They like it because its new, because it has great visuals, because he was being convinced for years that he needed to play this. Theres also the social aspect of discussing newly released games with others.

That said, thats not true for every SP game. There are many that do - or rather need - to rely on more concrete aspects such as good challenges or truly well written stories in order to get people to play them. Just go try a Touhou game and tell me if its being rigged in the player's favour, or read a VN about a bartender mixing drinks and say thats a power fantasy.

Multiplayer is competition. Getting kills in Battle Royale games, or goals in Rocket League etc require a true (slow) mastery of the game mechanics. That's why getting 5 kills in a MOBA is so much more satisfying than killing 5 AI in Uncharted 2. These games do much less to babysit the player. The only way you advance in such games are actually becoming better at the game.

You don't need to master the mechanics in order to get kills (or goals) in those games, so regardless of skill the player can feel good anyway, and its a feeling he knows its potentially always around the corner rather than being some vague payoff he has no idea whats about, 300 pages away. In fact, often times the "high" i was referring to doesn't even come in the form of scores, but drops, rewards, etc.

That said, i'm not denying there are people who play MP games mainly for the skill aspect multiplayer offers.

 

[arkhamguy123]

Genuine question, you guys think we'll ever get another single player Batman game?

 

[Skifi28]

Genuine question, you guys think we'll ever get another single player Batman game?

Kind of a random question, but yes. When? I couldn't tell you.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Going into the thread I took a guess in my head of $60 billion. Turns out it's double that. lol.

1. Mobile gaming is roughly equal to console and PC combined

2. And mobile is also growing at the highest rate % and $$$

Now you why Bethesda and Activision are so gung ho about smartphone RPGs and Diablo.

Show of hands gamers, which GAFFERS are big time cell phone and microtrans contributors? I know I'm not. I don't play smartphone games, and the last DLC I bought for money is a map pack or two for MW3 9 years ago.

So don't blame me for encouraging devs to do mtx and cell phone games.

 

[arkhamguy123]

Kind of a random question, but yes. When? I couldn't tell you.

Well not exactly. This topic indicates a trend. Its why sony has become the last man standing for proper SP games with high production values. Activision, nope. WB Games, nope. Ubisoft, Nope. EA, well fallen order was an exception but otherwise nope. Microsoft, nope. ETC.

 

[Skifi28]

Well not exactly. This topic indicates a trend. Its why sony has become the last man standing for proper SP games with high production values. Activision, nope. WB Games, nope. Ubisoft, Nope. EA, well fallen order was an exception but otherwise nope. Microsoft, nope. ETC.

I don't know, Sony has proven that there's a huge market for these games. Fallen order was kind of an experiment and it was a success. Valhalla seems to have sold a ton. SP is on the rise and publishers are taking note.

 

[Hypereides]

I'll be honest: I paid real money for ingame stuff once.

It made my character look cool

People like this are sadly validating this practice.

If any of you think these corporations will limit themselves, or be satisfied at some point ,you're in for a surprise. They're going to expand MTX into places you likely wouldn't believe. Expect MTX to "go to town" on the most trivial gameplay areas in coming the years. Most of you will probably not like it or whatever, but by then the damage will be done and your dissatisfaction will be ignored when its firmly engrained.

 

[LordBlodgett]

You know I pretty much dislike most all in game transactions, but I still feel like the gaming industry has never been in a better place. How many great games released this last year? And not only great games, but the variety of types of games available is also higher than ever. We should ask be excited that the industry is doing well enough that nearly every type of gamer is getting great new games

 

[ripeavocado]

Too much

the game industry is going to shit thanks to these people.

Let’s talk about this again In 5 years if you don’t believe.

 

[Panajev2001a]

That actually makes a lot of sense and if anything this shows why game pass will be a force once MS starts rolling out solid exclusive titles.

Most causal gamers don’t have $65-$75 to spend to constantly buy new games in one year but they do have $5-$20 to spend on getting upgrades or dlc for games they already own or are focused on like call of duty, fortnite, etc.

Services like game pass will give more gamers access to more games which in turn can create more opportunities for devs to get that add-on/dlc money because it’s clear from this data that big money is in the add-on and dlc content not just the initial game purchase.

... and shortly after, in that scenario, you will start seeing the next push... all towards games optimised for this “game sale profits is worthless vs DLC and micro transactions” reality which is essentially what we see now on Android and iOS.

Not sure if this is turkeys jumping in the oven for Christmas, but sounds like it... yeah ...

 

[TheMan]

Not necessarily a bad thing. Up until bungie vaulted a bunch of their shit, I would have said that Destiny was a decent model for how this could work. Base game and then you can buy expansions (which could have been meatier, granted) + lots of stupid comestics for the whales. Ongoing funding means more events, more updates, more content for those who want it.

I'm trying to stay optimistic because there is no way in fucking hell the industry will ignore the potential profits of in-game sales, so with always-online games having been firmly established this stuff is never ever going away

 

[MrS]

More games should be F2P with optional skins/accoutrements. Fortnite and Warzone do a phenomenal job of this without harming gameplay and it's a superb and proven business strategy.

Ultimate Team should also be F2P and shouldnt be hid behind a £60 price barrier.

 

[Nikana]

I am really glad prices are going up. Really going to help those developers of these big corporations as they haven't found any additional sources of revenue as prices of development have gone up.


/s

 

[arkhamguy123]

I don't know, Sony has proven that there's a huge market for these games. Fallen order was kind of an experiment and it was a success. Valhalla seems to have sold a ton. SP is on the rise and publishers are taking note.

I anticipate after Gotham Knights flops so bad it makes avengers looks good WB will scramble to get an arkham esque title out immediately.

 

[sunnysideup]

There is a market for great singleplayer games. There will be great singleplayer games being made in the future. The pie is getting larger.

I dont give a shit about free to play, games as service, gambling,