Monday, October 16th 2017
Digital River: "Games as a Service, Microtransactions, Tripled Industry's Value"
A report from monetization service company Digital River has found that the gaming industries' value has roughly tripled since the inception of the G"Games as a Service Model", which includes DLC (like Destiny and Destiny 2' content modules) and microtransactions (of which loot boxes are all the rage these days). The report, titled "Defend Your Kingdom: What Game Publishers Need to Know About Monetization & Fraud", noted that developers of all sizes are benefiting from the "steady stream of in-game content that both serves player expectations and increases their revenue per user." And this doesn't apply to free-to-play games: the report states that "In 2016, a quarter of all digital revenue from PC games with an upfront cost came from additional content."
According to the report, "Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content. Publishers seek to meet these expectations and have adopted a 'games as a service' model, releasing fewer titles over time while keeping players engaged longer with regular updates and add-ons." The fact that PC users are less willing to pay the full upfront cost of games, usually waiting a few weeks before taking the plunge so as to take advantage of lowered pricing - which occurs much earlier compared to other platforms - leads the report to say that PC gamers are "gaming the games market".
Sources:
Games Industry, Digital River Report
According to the report, "Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content. Publishers seek to meet these expectations and have adopted a 'games as a service' model, releasing fewer titles over time while keeping players engaged longer with regular updates and add-ons." The fact that PC users are less willing to pay the full upfront cost of games, usually waiting a few weeks before taking the plunge so as to take advantage of lowered pricing - which occurs much earlier compared to other platforms - leads the report to say that PC gamers are "gaming the games market".
25 Comments on Digital River: "Games as a Service, Microtransactions, Tripled Industry's Value"
Compared to the golden years of pc gaming from 1990-2000 you used to get heaps more content from day one for your money. Games for the pc were also cheaper than their console versions.
These days you get around half the content as you used to back in golden years and publishers dangle day one DLC or DLC in general like a carrot on a stick in front of consumers.
All im saying is that motherf**kers are greedy.
Im not criticising a business for trying to make money. But there's making money then theres simply 'fleecing' the consumers
Cosmetic garbage? Hell no.
I only accept DLC as a "thing" to enrich the game, adding new function. Not as a key to unlock the whole game experience that I supposed to enjoy when I buy the "base" of game. $60 for a half-baked game?
I think you could stretch those "Golden Years" of gaming out to 2005 and still be accurate in your assumptions. I've been pc gaming since 1988 or so...and for me...the golden years were 2000-2005, perhaps even 2006-7.(ALL hail the King! NForce2!....then Conroe upsets apple cart). I can remember heading down to CompUSA on Friday nights to pick up my latest title. Prices had jumped from 29.99 to 39.99 during that period. For me....the heyday ended when prices started creeping to 49.99 and DLC became more prevalent over expansion packs. Besides...I didn't even join Steam until November of 2004...frankly because it was unneeded and quite unstable until then and even after then....I rarely used it because it was unnecessary although convenient in regards to the "Orange Box" released in late 2007.
I'd say the advent of "online content delivery" has been the foundation of those tripling of numbers. Perhaps...at the end of the day....when all is accounted for, it's been a tripling of prices as well.
I've attempted to avoid the 'fleecing' since 2009 by sticking to my "never purchase a game over 9.99" model. I'll be sticking to that until it doesn't work anymore. I've only had to break the rule twice in the last three years. Fallout 4 and recently Witcher III, but I've also noticed a trend creeping up....the games that we're marked down to 9.99 a few months after release....the good ones at least are holding at 19.99....so, perhaps I'll have to update my so-called "model" sooner or later to account for this ~ inflation.
I rather be a little late to the party instead of showing up on time and staring at a carrot....:). Besides....the $60 entry fee is beyond my means....and comprehension as well.
Best Regards,
Liquid cool
It's sad how far the gaming scene has devolved into gambling with loot boxes, paid DLC, micro-transactions, fees, pre-orders locking content, ece just to play a game. Games like COD and battlefield easily run over $100 with all the content, games with loot boxes can run over $200 to get all the content! That is ridiculous.
That god for GOG. Old games just work.
Then publishers starting having all of that AND they started adding a huge quantity of cosmetic (and sometimes straight pay to win) mini-DLC packs. Suddenly, if you wanted the complete experience you could expect to shell out $150-200.
Not content with sucking on the DLC teat alone, publishers have been adding in game micro transactions, ala Free-To-Pay games. And that's at least one insult too far. I don't enjoy "games" that are constantly nagging you to spend just a wee bit more money.
$100 for a complete experience was barely tolerable. Adding in $50+ in mini-DLCs was largely ignorable. The mutated abortions that are coming out now however......I have better things to do than to participate in these endless money vampires.
We are talking about the people in general here, not just you.
Its like saying most people drive a ford pickup in america and you say "absolute bs, I drive a honda"....
When was the last time there was a AAA release with zero additional content to try and squeeze more from players after launch?
If a developer could make a game thats genuinely worth $60 from the get go then thats an entirely different story altogether. But the problem is they are half assing a game just so they can add loot crates which they know a tonne of people will buy. You are getting less content for that $60 every year
Witcher games were a good example of how to balance should work.
I'm not going to blame the industry for being what they are.
AOEII: the age of kings got hundreds of hours of my life. As did the old X wing games. And Civ II.
both console and PC were awash with tons of amazing games. I miss that era, waiting for the newest game informer to see what games were coming out, browsing through the local EB games for good N64 cartridges, ece. No patches, no online DRM, no microtransactons or pre order bollocks.
Games as a service makes about as much sense as an OS as a service[looking at you Windows 10], which makes about as much sense as an oral bowl-movement. It's not working well and isn't likely to.
they should move to cheaper areas and be able to drive prices down...
and TBH game devs that read this and think that being in redwood shores, etc makes you a better studio you are flat out wrong. Nobody GAF about where you are located. Just as long as you make games that are fun and affordable...