Electronic Arts, THQ Look To Microtransactions 83
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the do-not-want dept.
from the do-not-want dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Forbes:
"Electronic Arts, one of the world's largest games publishers, on Monday partnered with microtransactions platform Live Gamer to bolster its online game efforts. ... THQ also announced a partnership with Live Gamer last week to facilitate microtransactions of its online PC and mobile games in North America. ... Worldwide sales of virtual items are expected to reach $7 billion by 2015, according to online games research firm DFC Intelligence. Fast-growing social games companies like Zynga, the maker of FarmVille, are leading the charge. The company is estimated to be pulling in around $600 million in revenue annually, largely from the sale of virtual goods. Americans are also growing comfortable with the microtransactions model. Game companies point to the music industry, where consumers buy 99-cent digital tracks instead of full albums on CDs."
Piracy will be impossible (Score:1, Interesting)
Note that in this case the games itself would be free like in asian markets and I doubt that the normal games are going anywhere. This is most likely to expand their market. There are a lot of people, especially teens, who rather pay for individual items than go to a store and pay full $60 for a game.
It also makes piracy really hard, especially when the games are played online and the info about items and addons you own are on the server. It's practically impossible to pirate that. With the 90% piracy rate on PC games it's not surprising that publishers are looking for new ways, even if that's sad. PC gamers really need to think about their future and not try to get everything for free, because it just leads to publishers making games where it's not possible - shitty online games with microtransactions for the housewifes.
Microtransactions and withholding content (Score:1, Interesting)
Since their introduction, microtransactions have been subverted from their original purpose of funding content development after the game's release, and used instead to lock out content already on the disc until the user pays (e.g. Resident Evil 5's multiplayer, Street Fighter IV's costumes). This was little different from practice in the past, where content would be withheld for a future expansion pack, but is it all that different?
To use a car analogy, withholding content for an expansion pack and nickel-and-diming with microtransactions seems to me like the difference between buying a car with the ABS option separate for extra cost, and integrating ABS into the car, but requiring the customer to pay to unlock it. Are they really any different? My gut tells me the second scenario is somehow worse, but I can't quantify exactly how it differs from the first scenario.
Re:Microtransactions is a code word (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. I'd rather pay the $20. When we're talking about $20 transactions, that's something that's worth my while to investigate and see if I'm getting a good deal. When we're talking about $.05 transactions, that's not worth my while to consider critically. Sure it's not a big loss if I get ripped off for 5 cents, but it adds up. I'd rather just skip it.
To put it another way. For a $20 transaction, I have to make 1 decision. For $20 worth of $.05 transactions, I have to make 400 decisions. Which is going to be less stressful to me?
Re:Piracy will be impossible (Score:3, Interesting)
What, sad? No this is great! Finally software companies are doing their duty, and finding something to replace their outdated business model! This is what slashdot has repeatedly said that it wants, and now exactly that is happening! What could be better?
(Yes, I am being sarcastic.)