Topic: Iwata Hints at the Future of Micro-Transactions for Wii U, 3DS

[Adrock]

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't believe this is actually the case. Counterpoint: remember the old id software Quake 1 demo CD that actually had the entire id game collection up to that point on it? Unlockable by ordering codes over the phone. I wouldn't feel entitled to all that just for paying less than 10 dollars.

Fair enough. To clarify: one buys Game X specifically for the content of Game X so the belief is that one has already purchased that content at retail. In any case, as someone who has never purchased DLC, I don't have an opinion either way on the subject. I was merely attempting to explain the line of thinking.

This, of course, doesn't acknowledge the fact that development costs have skyrocketed in today's world.

It does. I believed these things to be understood. More sophisticated games may require larger budgets but the industry has matured since Zelda 1 and is much larger today. Budgets have risen due to technological demands and so has the audience for such products.

[UncleBob]

Budgets have risen due to technological demands and so has the audience for such products.

Has the audience really expanded *that* much?

Obviously, this chart only reflects Japanese numbers and is a few years old, but a twenty year old port of an NES game outselling the high-budget "next gen" Mario Galaxy?

The audience may have expanded, but so has the selection available to them.  Outside of a few HD Winners (Call of Duty, for example), the extra sales are in no way comparable to the increase in budgets from the NES-era to today.

[MagicCow64]

I have no offhand examples of DLC being inflated in size or otherwise dressed up to hide the fact that it's just an unlock. It might not happen, but after the bad press some companies got after getting caught selling DLC keys (or even Nintendo with the free Layton puzzles), it wouldn't surprise me given the lack of oversight and past sleazy behavior on the part of these companies.

A better example is probably the Catwoman mode you had to enter a code for to open that aspect of the game in Arkham City. All already on the disc, and the game world comes with the inaccessible Catwoman sections whether or not she's unlocked. I am ashamed to admit that I bought the game new so as to have Catwoman available.

And then there's Marvel vs. Capcom 3, which had an anemic roster, obviously because they intended to release DLC characters/release a mildly upgraded version of the game at retail.

[S-U-P-E-R]

36 from-scratch characters = anemic 
 
ERR ANYWAY, I think we're approaching the conclusion that on-disc "DLC" is basically a scam except maybe in certain cases, and game companies are basically on the honor system here/vote with your wallets/etc. I can't imagine any cases where it's been a huge success for a company, but maybe I'm just being too optimistic?

[MagicCow64]

36 from-scratch characters = anemic 
 
ERR ANYWAY, I think we're approaching the conclusion that on-disc "DLC" is basically a scam except maybe in certain cases, and game companies are basically on the honor system here/vote with your wallets/etc. I can't imagine any cases where it's been a huge success for a company, but maybe I'm just being too optimistic?

C'mon, you wanted like 56 characters on that puppy out of the box. And She-Hulk and Bionic Commando reboot characters don't count!

[Adrock]

Has the audience really expanded *that* much?

Yes. Significantly more people play videogames today and more are born every year.

Obviously, this chart only reflects Japanese numbers and is a few years old, but a twenty year old port of an NES game outselling the high-budget "next gen" Mario Galaxy?

I find it odd that you would use Mario (or really any Nintendo IP) as an example. Nintendo games are low risk, high reward products even with higher budgets. While I don't think the comparison is fair (the port was $30 less and sold mostly on nostalgia), it's important to note that Super Mario Galaxy still made Nintendo tons of money, certainly enough to justify a direct sequel using the same exact engine which also made Nintendo tons of money.

The audience may have expanded, but so has the selection available to them.  Outside of a few HD Winners (Call of Duty, for example), the extra sales are in no way comparable to the increase in budgets from the NES-era to today.

The selection has expanded, but isn't today's larger audience also buying more games? Also, if you're going to compare budgets from 1986 against budgets in 2012, it looks a lot worse than it actually is since it doesn't take over 25 years worth of steady increases into account. Go back even 10 years ago (prior to DLC on consoles), budgets continued to rise but companies still made money.

Nintendo makes more money today than it did back in the 1980s, a lot more and despite the increased costs. Most games with really high budgets tend to be so popular that they make that money back at retail alone. Ultimately, companies sell DLC because DLC makes money and loads of it. They're certainly entirely entitled to do so just as people are entitled to not buy them. I'm just not convinced that DLC exists because budgets have risen. Content from micro-transactions take a minimal amount of work and yield high rewards.

[Ceric]

I will now state that UncleBob has bought a lot of DLC content in just his e-Reader card collection.

Now I'm in the camp that you should be able to have a full satisfying experience in a game with just what you initially purchased.

I believe everything completed on the disc should be unlock for no money some way.

I also believe that things that are partially done and get completed after release can be charged for  if they are purely extensions.

[Chozo Ghost]

I'm still surprised at the number of people who actually care if the DLC is physically on the disc or not.  Like, this particular horse armor isn't worth $2 because it's already on the disc, but if I have to actually download it from their servers, well it's totally worth $2 then...

Uncle Bob, its just the principle of it. It isn't really a real problem, but the idea that this content is already there on the disc and that you have to pay in order to use it even though you already have the disc is revolting. Its nothing more than a cheap money grab from the publisher.

[UncleBob]

While I don't think the comparison is fair (the port was $30 less and sold mostly on nostalgia), it's important to note that Super Mario Galaxy still made Nintendo tons of money, certainly enough to justify a direct sequel using the same exact engine which also made Nintendo tons of money.

The comparison was the entire chart - I just highlighted that one because it shows a lot of the detail.

As for Mario games selling... yeah, but two things are at play.  First Miyamoto does what Miyamoto wants - and he's been trying to cram 3D Mario down our throats for years (in spite of the fact that 2D Mario is what the fans want - and the sales numbers clearly reflect this).  This is an unusual aspect of the market, as most developers aren't given the free reign that Miyamoto is.

Second, Return on Investment. Someone could spend $1 Million developing a Mario-like clone and make $1.5 million in sales.  Or they can spend $10 Million developing an HD Call of Duty clone and make $20 Million in sales.  Which is more appealing?

I will now state that UncleBob has bought a lot of DLC content in just his e-Reader card collection.

Well.. I *suppose*... though I did that more for the collecting/trading card aspect than anything else.

Uncle Bob, its just the principle of it. It isn't really a real problem, but the idea that this content is already there on the disc and that you have to pay in order to use it even though you already have the disc is revolting. Its nothing more than a cheap money grab from the publisher.

So, you'd be okay if the exact same content was on the server for the same price?

[UncleBob]

Nintendo makes more money today than it did back in the 1980s, a lot more and despite the increased costs.

Whoops...

[Chozo Ghost]

So, you'd be okay if the exact same content was on the server for the same price?

I would be more okay with it. At least then it would feel like you are paying for and receiving something extra, as opposed to just paying to be able to use something which is already on the disc you own and paid $60 for. It feels like less of a rip off when you are downloading something extra, and its easy to tell when you are downloading something extra as opposed to unlocking it because if you are downloading it the content will be a hundred megs or more, but if its just some unlock then it will be just a few kilobytes or megabytes. There is no way a major expansion can be crammed into a download only 100kb large. I'm sure there are a lot of suckers out there who don't know any better, but anyone with a moderate amount of computer knowledge knows 100kb is only about enough for a jpeg picture at best. How can you cram new levels and characters and stuff into that? So when that happens its very obvious its on the disc.

But when you pay for a DLC download which is a few hundred MB or 1 or 2 GB in size then you know you are getting the real deal and it feels like you are getting your money's worth out of it.

[UncleBob]

So, basically, you're advocating for publishers to play mind games with consumers.  Instead of them deciding what they want to charge for a product and doing it, you want them to analyze the best way for them to go about "tricking" you into giving them money so you don't "feel" like you're getting ripped off?

[Chozo Ghost]

So, basically, you're advocating for publishers to play mind games with consumers.  Instead of them deciding what they want to charge for a product and doing it, you want them to analyze the best way for them to go about "tricking" you into giving them money so you don't "feel" like you're getting ripped off?

No, I'm advocating they DON'T play mind games with consumers. Right now what they are doing is deceitful and underhanded, because they don't tell you all you are paying for is the unlock and probably the majority of consumers aren't savvy enough to realize that a tiny download can't possibly contain all the new content they are getting. For the most part there is no outrage because few know what's really going on. They should be honest and upfront with their customers.

Do you think its fair what publishers are doing now and tricking people?

[Chocobo_Rider]

@UncleBob
@Ian Sane

You have said some things that I truly agree with on a very fundamental level.

I also hope that I don't have to become a purely "retro gamer" simply because the modern industry has decided to whore itself out to these cheap tricks.


@broodwars

Fine. Didn't have time for it? Then make it for sure FREE and make it deliverable in a permanent fashion.  Not some code that's going to expire when my hardware does.  You want me to have your full game? Guess what, I want it! Win win!

If it's something really cool, delay your game.  If you delay it less than a year total then you won't lose sales.  Let alone if the delay only adds a few weeks. 

Otherwise, don't ship unfinished games. Don't pass the cost of development short-comings on to your consumers.  And don't leave content out "conveniently" to charge us later.

[UncleBob]

So, basically, you're advocating for publishers to play mind games with consumers.  Instead of them deciding what they want to charge for a product and doing it, you want them to analyze the best way for them to go about "tricking" you into giving them money so you don't "feel" like you're getting ripped off?

No, I'm advocating they DON'T play mind games with consumers. Right now what they are doing is deceitful and underhanded, because they don't tell you all you are paying for is the unlock and probably the majority of consumers aren't savvy enough to realize that a tiny download can't possibly contain all the new content they are getting. For the most part there is no outrage because few know what's really going on. They should be honest and upfront with their customers.

Do you think its fair what publishers are doing now and tricking people?

I see nothing wrong with a publisher saying "For $x, you get this.  For $y more, you get this too" - the method they use to deliver that to me isn't my biggest concern.

[S-U-P-E-R]

That's fine, but when a game company clearly fibs about stuff in their marketing, that really boils my butt. Real world example: Namco press released or advertised Darth Vader/Yoda being downloadable in Soul Calibur IV due to popular demand (originally being system-exclusive, of course), which is retarded because A) they weren't downloadable, it was a 192kb unlock code and B) they were already on the disc, it was the plan from the start and not some sort of response to demand. That sort of misrepresentation is what game companies shouldn't get away with.

[Adrock]

Whoops...

Does this have anything to do with development costs which is what we're talking about? Probably not when you look at sales of Nintendo's actual games vs. their respective budgets. Nintendo had next to nothing new on the Wii besides Skyward Sword and botched the launched of 3DS. It's not difficult to see where Nintendo fudged things. Nintendo posted years of profit before 2011 when they had major titles to sell throughout the year and weren't trying to sell a $250 handheld with a weak launch lineup.

[Ian Sane]

For those bringing up the rising development costs of games today, I think it is incredibly naive to think that that is the sole justification for companies doing this.  They're doing it because the technology now allows for it.  If it was possible in the Atari days when each game was made by only one staff member they would have done it then.  If game development was dirt cheap and each game had a huge markup they would still do it because why wouldn't they?  If the market tolerates getting nickel and dimed, the industry will do it.  Product placement is the same way.  They'll do it if they feel they can get away with it and it makes no difference if that extra revenue is required to make a living or is just a bonus.

[UncleBob]

For those bringing up the rising development costs of games today, I think it is incredibly naive to think that that is the sole justification for companies doing this.

I counter that with the fact that it's incredibly naive to think that any particular action has a singular justification.

However, you're correct - the goal of any publisher is to squeeze as much money out of one product so they can dump it into another (while making their various investors and such happy).

DLC and first-purchase content is just one way they've found to maximize their profit - the fact that it helps to offset rising development costs is simply a plus.

Also, keep in mind - a lot of development costs are, gasp, paid for by the developer.  However, if they can get advances from the publisher, this helps to give them more wiggle room in the development.  A game with the promise of additional income flow (i.e.: after-purchase DLC) simply helps to entice the publisher into giving the developer more funds to work with - now, not only can they point to sales projections, but they can also point to profit from DLC projections...

[oohhboy]

I doesn't matter what happens on the business side for us*(No matter what you say, the average consumer isn't going to give a ****). The problems is for a lot of people the DLC well has been poisoned and continues to be poisoned by publishers/developers squeezing that last nickel. It's like fishing, there are a certain number of fish you can catch that means fish stocks remain stable. But there are a lot of companies out there constantly overfishing. Sure they get the short term profit, but in the end they are just putting themselves and everybody else out of business.

In theory, I should no problem with DLC, but it has been consistently been done so poorly. A lot of the time all it really does is mess with pricing information. You buy a game, then you find out there is DLC, then you find there is no end to the amount of DLC, nor is there any system to the price or quality of DLC. Pricing information goes out the window since the price can conceivably be infinite in game pricing terms(Not actually infinite). That alone puts me off a lot of the time not to mention the constant underhanded marketing tactics with obvious cut content and the like that just leaves you with nothing but negative feelings.

As consumers adjust to the new environment, more and more people are just going to start sitting out on games and wait for the GOTY edition if they aren't outright discouraged. Sure there will always be that hardcore element that money is no object to, but really in the end your only shrinking your own market and shitting in your own pond.

[Mop it up]

I don't like the sound of this...

There's definitely an issue game companies face when it comes to rising development costs. The problem is that few consumers are willing to pay $100+ for a single game, so game prices really can't go up even as the cost of making them does. Video games are already one of the if not the highest priced media, so people would be more inclined to buy more movies, music, books, etc. if games started costing more. Plus, I'm not convinced that most people are willing to spend $60 on most games, seeing how fast they drop (myself, I could probably use my fingers to count the number of Wii games I spent the full $50 on). Games may cost a lot to develop but that doesn't make the value to the consumer go up.

There has to be a better solution than nickel and diming people using DLC. The whole thing seems undermining and controlling on the part of publishers. Personally, I think that companies should just produce less games. There shouldn't be a reason for any one system to have thousands of games available, especially when a small fraction of them are actually on store shelves at one time (and that a majority of them are probably junk, but that may not be something which can be proven as quality is partly subjective). Less games selling more copies equals more profits. I know that wouldn't be an easy thing to do, but looking at the number of developers who closed up shop in recent years, something needs to be done. That something just needs to be good for consumers and companies alike.

[UncleBob]

As consumers adjust to the new environment, more and more people are just going to start sitting out on games and wait for the GOTY edition if they aren't outright discouraged.

Likewise, the developers and publishers will have to adjust to the new market.  If everyone just sits it out until the GotY edition is released, then publishers will have to determine do they not release a GotY edition?  Do they make DLC cheaper for first-time buyers/early adopters?  Do they stop DLC all together.

At this point, the entire DLC market/model is too new for anyone to have a firm grasp on how to handle it.

There's a large segment of the population who throws a fit at the idea of a company selling DLC in the form of Horse Armor or other aesthetic upgrades that serve no real purpose.  Meanwhile, there's a large segment of the population who throws a fit at the idea of a company selling DLC that actually serves a purpose - if it's a weapon or upgrade that gives players an advantage or map packs that segment the online community.

We're all learning how to use this new "microtransaction" feature in a way that makes companies money while making customers happy.

[Chozo Ghost]

Likewise, the developers and publishers will have to adjust to the new market.  If everyone just sits it out until the GotY edition is released, then publishers will have to determine do they not release a GotY edition?  Do they make DLC cheaper for first-time buyers/early adopters?  Do they stop DLC all together.

Or maybe just cut the crap and just release the GOTY.

[TJ Spyke]

if it's a weapon or upgrade that gives players an advantage or map packs that segment the online community.

What annoys me is when I have to download a 400MB "compatibility" file just to be able to play online with people who have bought certain DLC. So even if I have no interest in the DLC, I have to waste a large chunk of HDD space just to play online with someone who does have it.

[UncleBob]

Or maybe just cut the crap and just release the GOTY.

Wouldn't that fall under the "Stop DLC altogether" part of that statement?