Pay lots once? Pay little often? Or a combination of both?
The rise of games available as ‘free-to-play’ is great for gamers with small budgets. However, these games often have ‘hidden costs’ in the form of aesthetic extras, power- and speed-ups, and DLC add-ons, which has become a somewhat controversial topic as of late.
According to this article by MCV, one-off payments for games actually work out as very cheap if you consider the amount of entertainment time you get from a single game (bear with us while we get mathematical). They worked it out as this: Game cost ÷ hours of gameplay = cost per hour
So if someone buys a game for a base price of £42, then spends two hours a day everyday for a year (730 hours) playing that game, they’re spending roughly 6p per hour of gameplay. SIX PENNIES. For comparison, the MCV article claims a TV show costs about $0.60-$0.65 USD per hour (42-46p), and a film $0.80 cents-$3 (£0.56-£2.12).
However, if we factor in monthly microtransactions of £15 to this, as MCV do, the cost for one year including the game's base price rises to £222 (ouch) which raises the cost per hour to £0.30. Which is still a pittance, especially considering extra material that is free (though financed by these upfront and additional costs) - think how Rockstar Games included a map of San Andreas in every box of Grand Theft Auto V (printed before they made money off the game), and the free app in which users can, amongst other things, train Chop the dog in the game’s story mode. Notably, the DLC for GTAV online are all free - probably to avoid issues that would arise from different players in the same lobby having different DLCs installed.
However, Rockstar Games absolutely make money of the DLCs they put out for GTAV, by way of microtransactions. New items (cars, weapons, clothes, etc) often cost a lot of in-game money (think $6-10 million for a yacht - it is awesome though), and rather than grinding for in relatively low-profit races and missions, many who can opt to buy the ‘Shark Cards’, which cost between £1.99 for $100,000 in-game currency to £64.99 for $8 million.
In a post on Rockstar Newswire, the company states that this is for the “instant gratification type” of player to help them get items “a little quicker” (I laugh at the use of the word ‘little’); “the game and its economy have been designed and balanced for the vast majority of players who will not buy extra cash,” however the difference between winning a race often comes down to who could afford to fully upgrade the car.
There is also an ethical argument against microtransactions. A developer from Playsaurus said they suspected that some people who spent thousands of dollars in microtransactions in the first Clicker Heroes game were doing it to feed an addiction, rather than to support the game. In explaining why the studio is using a ‘pay up-front’ model for the sequel, Clicker Heroes 2, the developer said:
“We made a lot of money from these players who spent thousands. Great. If you're rich, please be my guest. But we don't want this kind of money if it came from anyone who regrets their decision, if it made their lives significantly worse as a result. We really don't like making money off players who are in denial of their addiction. And that's what a large part of free-to-play gaming is all about. Everyone in the industry seems to rationalize it by shifting the blame, assuming way too much cognizance on the part of their victims. People can make their own decisions, right?”
Well, yes for the most part, but people who are addicted are not necessarily acting in a rational manner. And other people may not understand that they are spending actual money - children for instance. You may remember the Twitter rant Kanye West went on in 2015 about microtransactions in mobile games aimed at children after his daughter North was spending money. It’s unlikely that he has an issue with the cost, but whether it’s the ethics of it or the constant notifications for receipts is unclear.
As with most debates, there’s no clear answer to whether microtransactions should stop being used. The arguments get muddier when loot boxes get involved, which have been accused as a form of gambling. This is something that the industry will have to explore and come to a conclusion about, though this may take some time and could quite possibly end up with different developers reaching different conclusions.
Do you prefer free-to-play games with microtransactions, or dropping a significant amount of money in one as per the pay up-front model? Let us know in the comments!
Comentarios