Digital River: "Games as a Service, Microtransactions, Tripled Industry's Value"

[Raevenlord]

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".



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[FreedomEclipse]

"Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content,"

What absolute BS. Im more than happy to pay $60 per game, but the problem i have is when publishers keep part of the game behind a paywall that requires $5-25 to unlock after I've paid the $60 for the game.

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

 

[RejZoR]

Gazillion metric tons of really garbage looking weapon skins hardly qualify as "Steady stream of new content". Good example, CS:GO...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The Sims and Payday 2 both caught me with the "games as a service." In both cases I didn't realize there would be 3+ years of expansions. Can't say I really regret buying either though.

Cosmetic garbage? Hell no.

 

[evernessince]

I honestly don't care for any of these new payment models. You typically see them from game studios who can't actually make a good game.

 

[heroine6940]

Some studios actually can make a good game. But some money-sucking vampires decide to separate a game into many, many parts and label these as Base, Blah Blah Blah DLC, Blah Blah Blah Edition.

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?

 

[RejZoR]

The Sims and Payday 2 both caught me with the "games as a service." In both cases I didn't realize there would be 3+ years of expansions. Can't say I really regret buying either though.

Cosmetic garbage? Hell no.

I don't mind cosmetics that don't affect gameplay. In CS:GO I didn't spend a single cent on garbage they offer. And neither have I on Killing Floor 2 despite me wanting to extra support the devs. But they screwed it up with retarded loot lotery system. I'd buy many skin designs if I could pick which ones exactly. Like I did for Killing Floor 1. But spending real money so I maybe get one thing out of a pack (that i might not even want) is just silly. So I haven't spent ANYTHING. I guess there are enough idiots who do for this business model to thrive so much...

 

[R0H1T]

You'd think that with consumer/gamer satisfaction possibly at an all time low, this would at least slow down but no

 

[ppn]

It can quintuple that just means it will die off faster. People that like to gamble or/and game tend to have less or no kids and will select themselves out of the gene pool. Until one day there will be no gambling and society will punish any such behaviour. For now if you don't go to the casino, the casino will go to you in every aspect of your life, especially little kids that are hooked since 7 years old to those games, and your wallet.

 

[Liquid Cool]

FreedomEclipse...

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

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Just more money grubbing by the "casuals" who have no problem spending daddy's money, AKA 12 year olds or young adults that spend all day/all their money gaming in their parents basement after spending all day working at McD's.

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.

 

[Bull Dog]

It is game publishers mindset of, "lets offer to bilk the gamers out of everything they own" that has had a chilling effect on my willingness to buy so called "AAA" games*. I understand game development is expensive but the trend to have a $60 game plus $40-50 of preorder DLC (season pass) was wearing thin on me. $100-120 for a game is a big ask.

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.

 

[Prince Valiant]

Crazy to think that we've gone from everyone mocking horse armor to many people happily shelling out for the trash .

 

[ZoneDymo]

What absolute BS. Im more than happy to pay $60 per game, but the problem i have is when publishers keep part of the game behind a paywall that requires $5-25 to unlock after I've paid the $60 for the game.

See you cannot counter argue a statistic with your own situation/opinion/views....
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"....

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

See you cannot counter argue a statistic with your own situation/opinion/views....
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"....

I mean, have you READ any auto discussion boards? A LOT of people say that, pointing out that people use crew cab V8 F-150s to take the kids to soccer practice and to get groceries instead of a fuel efficient car. The term "Driveway trophy" came from people pointing out how ridiculous it was people were buying trucks to use as cars.

 

[Prince Valiant]

See you cannot counter argue a statistic with your own situation/opinion/views....
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"....

What statistics, I don't see any numbers with sources? The report probably reads something like this: "Look at all this value DR has, you should invest in our crappy services!"

When was the last time there was a AAA release with zero additional content to try and squeeze more from players after launch?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

What statistic? The report probably reads something like this: "Look at all this value DR has, you should invest in our crappy services!"

When was the last time there was a AAA release with zero additional content to try and squeeze more from players after launch?

Horizon zero dawn and witcher 3 come to mind. Yes, they had DLC, but that DLC was MASSIVE for what you got. Especially W3, each expansion (because thats what they were, expansions) was bigger then most full games these days.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

See you cannot counter argue a statistic with your own situation/opinion/views....
We are talking about the people in general here, not just you.

Part of the problem is if the game itself is worth $60. How many people who paid for the original Battlefront game from EA feel that they are left out of pocket because barely anyone plays it on the PC anymore?? Loads of people wish they could refund it but they cant.

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.

 

[StrayKAT]

It can change... it just depends on gamers. Who I find to be one of the more careless and wasteful group of consumers around. They either have their parents' credit cards or too much disposable income for their own good. I don't mean the ones with other obligations or families of their own.. but teens and college kids. The latter might even be worse than the former.

I'm not going to blame the industry for being what they are.

 

[Prince Valiant]

Horizon zero dawn and witcher 3 come to mind. Yes, they had DLC, but that DLC was MASSIVE for what you got. Especially W3, each expansion (because thats what they were, expansions) was bigger then most full games these days.

That's how extra content should be. It skews the numbers for reports like this though.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I'm not going to blame the industry for being what they are.

You can blame them for taking advantage of those with an addictive personality. The whole Loot crate business opened up the doors for legalised gambling for minors with a tonne of other people making websites where they could gamble real money for cosmetic skins for games like CS:GO.

 

[yotano211]

I really miss the gaming world on the really late 90s and 2000s. My first game ever on PC was Homeworld that I bought in 1999, after that it was Age of Empires and Age of Empires 2.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I really miss the gaming world on the really late 90s and 2000s. My first game ever on PC was Homeworld that I bought in 1999, after that it was Age of Empires and Age of Empires 2.

early 2000s were great too. Destroy all humans, the baulders gate series (including icewindale and the console only dark alliance series), halo 1, the early ratchet and clanks, half life 2, battlefield 2142, star wars battlefront, ace combat, jak and daxter, super mario sunshine, the list goes on.

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.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Part of the problem is if the game itself is worth $60. How many people who paid for the original Battlefront game from EA feel that they are left out of pocket because barely anyone plays it on the PC anymore?? Loads of people wish they could refund it but they cant.

But that's part of the problem. Devs are making games focused on multi-player aspects and have forgotten that most people play games as an escape. Most people want a solid single player game that has multi-player aspects.

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.

Exactly. I have not seen even one new game on the Xbox platform worth paying more than $20 for. There are a few classic remakes and collections, but that different. PSN is only slightly better. Nintendo seems to be running away with the show, quality wise. And they're cleaning house as a result.

Witcher games were a good example of how to balance should work.

Good example.

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.

 

[remixedcat]

too many game companies are located in very expensive areas... EA, bethesda, valve, etc...

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...