"The $43.4 billion spent in 2018 was mostly on content, as opposed to hardware and accessories."
"Nearly 65 percent of U.S. adults, or more than 164 million people, play games. The most popular genre is casual games, with 60 percent of players gaming on their smartphones"
The combination of these two items leads me to conclude that microtransactions in casual games are winning in the financial sense, despite the complaints of "hardcore" gamers.
> microtransactions in casual games are winning in the financial sense, despite the complaints of "hardcore" gamers.
I'm not a "hardcore" gamer - I'm incredibly casual. I hate microtransactions because the focus has switched to "addictive" play rather than "rewarding" play. Microtransactions are usually BAD for casuals - You might have 10 minutes to play but can only play for 5 mins without paying up. You might have one night a week to play, but it wants you to log in for a few minutes every couple of hours, etc.
BUT the lack of alternatives means that there will be plenty of money spent on them. So I think this is a matter of "microtransactions out-earn flat cost games despite likely player preferences", not "hardcore vs casual".
And that's the unfortunate truth of why they arent going away anytime soon. Personally I believe that microtransactions should be considered a Dark Pattern, and I might consider supporting legislation that targets them, if it's ever brought up.
As expected. Video games such as Call of Duty and Red Dead 2 have been enjoying larger openings and overall sales than the most successful movie franchises.
However if you examine things on the micro level, the games sector is facing a number of challenges.
One is with the micro transactions model: though it is widely adopted in mobile, its inclusion in AAA titles has backfired in terms of PR. Mortal Kombat 11 and several EA titles such as Battefront 2 ans Need for Speed have been penalized heavily both by critics and vocal customers.
When you combine this with the looming pressure of regulation, things don’t look great for that revenue stream.
Secondly you have pressure towards subscription based models. Microsoft has the game pass, Apple is doing the arcade, Google is doing game streaming. So we’re going to see a Netflix type of subscription become more and more the norm. These games are full games, often AAA though there are some indie darlings. They’re not based on consumables.
Because of this, the proportion of revenues coming from micro transactions on both mobile and console is likely to shrink, and transform. It’s going to be interesting to see how this will affect the unit economics of game studios going forward.
The battlepass model is up and coming, where you pay to unlock a track with predictable rewards. As a person who plays a lot of games, I actually really like the predictability even if it means I end up feeling like I have to play a lot more.
The existence of many slot machine and lottery addicts --- even for the simple, totally probabilistic kinds --- seems like strong evidence against your second point.
Unfortunately there is another path people follow. As they get bored of games, they switch to actual gambling. If games improve enough that they don’t deliver the same high, not everyone will improve their tastes and solve their addictions or mental health problems.
I have trouble finding good mobile games that are immersive and not overly gimmicky, cartoony, require repetitive tap actions, or require annoying in app purchases. I seem to bore quickly and find most of the games on mobile to be pretty childish.
I’ve found some I like, but by and large they seem to just exist as commercials for in app revenue. Give me a good immersive game for $20 and I’d do it.
There is a discoverability problem for sure. There are good games out there, but I can't tell you what they are because what I enjoy and what you enjoy are different.
With that, making a game that's good to you appeals to a smaller percentage of the population than making a game full of addictive dark pattern microtransactions, so many of the companies with the money (and consequently advertising) choose to do that.
Mobile game companies will never do that, because while you and a hundred of your friends will give them $20 to own a genuine game, Whales will give them $1000 a month for their shiny skinner box
Well you can't spend "big" on conventional games like Terraria. I think I got 4 copies for $10. "Freemium" games on the other hand dictate no upper spending limit.
In the past there were no reports which lumped slot machines and PC/console gaming into the same bucket, it obviously just doesn't make sense. There has been a blurring between the two on mobile with many games which are mostly gambling without the cashing out.
Abnegation is one of the core reasons to play games. Some humans need times in their life to unwind and not be engaged. You can totally overdo it, but recognizing a game that is good for abnegation is totally valid.
if you're building a product that you want people to use during downtime (think: on a bus/train, sitting in a waiting room, on the toilet), these types of reviews are gold. I worked on an app that behaved more like an os extension/utility (think: something similar to an ios app that is only used to load a keyboard) but had visual design that made it seem like a time wasting game. We were constantly getting reviews with "not a great time waster" or "not enough to do in the app". We had tons of users, but those types of reviews were killing us. It's a thing people want to do: just be able to switch off and do something mindless with a phone.
I'm not saying mobile gaming like Clash of Clans or Candy Crush are bad, just that... man, they aren't for smart people. Likely most games aren't, but playing World of Warcraft and Diablo and Starcraft required a lot of thought and theory crafting to feel like I knew how to be elite at them.
So I know Blizzard is mathematically right to focus on mobile gamers, I just really miss "the good old days" when I spent as much time outside of the game learning about the game as I did playing the game. I doubt I'm the only one, but I know that sort of thing has a limited appeal and over time the market has evolved.
I just miss it. No game has pulled me in like Diablo 2 or World of Warcraft. Games like Fallout (not the latest), XCOM, and Civ are great... but man, if I'm honest, I really miss WoW circa 2006-2010. Doubt I'll ever have a gaming experience like that again.
I'd argue despite the posted revenue figures that no, it isn't right for Blizzard to focus on mobile.
They are a total no-name to mobile gamers, and mobile gamers in general don't care about brand and have no loyalty. They will play what their friends tell them to, which will almost always be and remain one of the top 10 titles with maybe half of said titles changing hands every year.
Yes, companies like Bethesda, EA, Activision, etc have the developer talent and cash to build games that could reach that top 10 app store status, but even they don't have the influence to buy their way there from Google, and the demographics of mobile gamers have very little overlap with traditional video gamers... at least in the audience they want, either very young children or middle aged adults that will spend all their free time on the one game constantly putting money in the slot machine.
If core gamers are going to dedicate themself to one title, its going to be a full featured experience, not a click bot braindrain.
So Blizzard is in large part sacrificing what gives their brand value (their appeal to core gamers) to enter a market they have no stake in or guarantee of success because they see other games winning the app store lottery to make fortunes on very little developer investment and want that money.
Its like being a business owner who sells their stake to buy lottery tickets. Sure, maybe you do win the jackpot of several hundred million without strings attached but you threw away reliable income for hard work to gamble with total chance.
> I'm not saying mobile gaming like Clash of Clans or Candy Crush are bad, just that... man, they aren't for smart people. Likely most games aren't, but playing World of Warcraft and Diablo and Starcraft required a lot of thought and theory crafting to feel like I knew how to be elite at them.
Clash of Clans has a lot of strategy so I don't know why you're using that as an example. Frankly almost any PvP game is going to have a lot of strategy. My friend who has scored twice as high as anyone else in the school in math competitions loved that game.
You seem to have this idea that smart people only do things that require they use their intelligence. I'd argue that is very much not the case.
>World of Warcraft and Diablo and Starcraft required a lot of thought and theory crafting to feel like I knew how to be elite at them
Outside of PVP WoW doesn't require much thought for the majority of players. Rotations can be automated through things like TellMeWhen and other addons. Then there are addons to tell you what gear is better, when to move, etc. Simming for the most part is a 'solved problem'. And that is only if you want to raid. If you have no interest in raiding you'd be able to do everything by just pressing 2 buttons.
Diablo, you'd be in the top 1% if you just google builds and grind your way there. It's mostly a time thing. And when they had the Ah you could "buy you way to the top".
Starcraft is a pure pvp game so it's slightly different. Skill requirements are probably similar to something like Clash Royal. Although CR can pay to advance (cards). It still requires some general strategy and has a meta.
After having gotten a Switch and noticing that I basically never play games on my phone anymore since having done so, I idly wondered if the Switch's release has had any observable effects on the growth of this market. Of course I realized pretty quickly that my experience isn't very generalizable, since I'm in a self-selected group from the outset (i.e. those willing to spend money on a dedicated gaming device) and since I only really ever played non-FTP games in the first place (and refused to ever make IAPs in the ones that I did try out for brief periods before inevitably getting annoyed and/or bored with them). That thought did make me curious, though, as to what sort of product could actually disrupt the FTP game market in the next few years (assuming it doesn't endure an organic downturn in that timespan), if any at all.
Personally, I haven't kept up with games on smartphones. What listed companies are there that are successful in the space? Seems like it might be worth looking at a few to round out one's portfolio.
It saddens me to see that. At around 15 years ago, there was a specific class of "adult videogame players" — a thing that eventually morphed into modern marginal slash mainstream "internet culture."
Back then, there was no question of that being a deviant thing, and I thought that only very messed up countries can host such culture where people die playing computer, kill people over videogames and live day and night in internet cafes.
Well, nowadays it became an everyday reality for countries far more developed than ones where this originally started.
[+] [-] mdorazio|6 years ago|reply
"The $43.4 billion spent in 2018 was mostly on content, as opposed to hardware and accessories."
"Nearly 65 percent of U.S. adults, or more than 164 million people, play games. The most popular genre is casual games, with 60 percent of players gaming on their smartphones"
The combination of these two items leads me to conclude that microtransactions in casual games are winning in the financial sense, despite the complaints of "hardcore" gamers.
[+] [-] ergothus|6 years ago|reply
I'm not a "hardcore" gamer - I'm incredibly casual. I hate microtransactions because the focus has switched to "addictive" play rather than "rewarding" play. Microtransactions are usually BAD for casuals - You might have 10 minutes to play but can only play for 5 mins without paying up. You might have one night a week to play, but it wants you to log in for a few minutes every couple of hours, etc.
BUT the lack of alternatives means that there will be plenty of money spent on them. So I think this is a matter of "microtransactions out-earn flat cost games despite likely player preferences", not "hardcore vs casual".
[+] [-] taurath|6 years ago|reply
Financially the gambling engines have eaten classic gamings lunch.
[+] [-] 0_gravitas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielleMolloy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahartmetz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImaCake|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tetrisgm|6 years ago|reply
However if you examine things on the micro level, the games sector is facing a number of challenges.
One is with the micro transactions model: though it is widely adopted in mobile, its inclusion in AAA titles has backfired in terms of PR. Mortal Kombat 11 and several EA titles such as Battefront 2 ans Need for Speed have been penalized heavily both by critics and vocal customers.
When you combine this with the looming pressure of regulation, things don’t look great for that revenue stream.
Secondly you have pressure towards subscription based models. Microsoft has the game pass, Apple is doing the arcade, Google is doing game streaming. So we’re going to see a Netflix type of subscription become more and more the norm. These games are full games, often AAA though there are some indie darlings. They’re not based on consumables.
Because of this, the proportion of revenues coming from micro transactions on both mobile and console is likely to shrink, and transform. It’s going to be interesting to see how this will affect the unit economics of game studios going forward.
[+] [-] Pfhreak|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwayEngineer|6 years ago|reply
Addicting clicking games get boring.
Sure it's weird to see a middle aged mom playing these worthless games, but give them another 2 years and they will move on.
Gaming has only evolved to be better. And we have already achieved unlimited entertainment if you are a PC gamer.
Worse games in the future is a near impossiblity. Or at least informed consumers are able to avoid the blight of micro transactions.
[+] [-] majos|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1123581321|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unstatusthequo|6 years ago|reply
I’ve found some I like, but by and large they seem to just exist as commercials for in app revenue. Give me a good immersive game for $20 and I’d do it.
[+] [-] mysterydip|6 years ago|reply
With that, making a game that's good to you appeals to a smaller percentage of the population than making a game full of addictive dark pattern microtransactions, so many of the companies with the money (and consequently advertising) choose to do that.
[+] [-] ourlordcaffeine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrguyorama|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imtringued|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwing838383|6 years ago|reply
Over and over again, with satisfied reviews, I see: "Great way to waste time!", "Nice Time killer". and i just sighhh.
[+] [-] Pfhreak|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbg31415|6 years ago|reply
I'm not saying mobile gaming like Clash of Clans or Candy Crush are bad, just that... man, they aren't for smart people. Likely most games aren't, but playing World of Warcraft and Diablo and Starcraft required a lot of thought and theory crafting to feel like I knew how to be elite at them.
So I know Blizzard is mathematically right to focus on mobile gamers, I just really miss "the good old days" when I spent as much time outside of the game learning about the game as I did playing the game. I doubt I'm the only one, but I know that sort of thing has a limited appeal and over time the market has evolved.
I just miss it. No game has pulled me in like Diablo 2 or World of Warcraft. Games like Fallout (not the latest), XCOM, and Civ are great... but man, if I'm honest, I really miss WoW circa 2006-2010. Doubt I'll ever have a gaming experience like that again.
[+] [-] zanny|6 years ago|reply
They are a total no-name to mobile gamers, and mobile gamers in general don't care about brand and have no loyalty. They will play what their friends tell them to, which will almost always be and remain one of the top 10 titles with maybe half of said titles changing hands every year.
Yes, companies like Bethesda, EA, Activision, etc have the developer talent and cash to build games that could reach that top 10 app store status, but even they don't have the influence to buy their way there from Google, and the demographics of mobile gamers have very little overlap with traditional video gamers... at least in the audience they want, either very young children or middle aged adults that will spend all their free time on the one game constantly putting money in the slot machine.
If core gamers are going to dedicate themself to one title, its going to be a full featured experience, not a click bot braindrain.
So Blizzard is in large part sacrificing what gives their brand value (their appeal to core gamers) to enter a market they have no stake in or guarantee of success because they see other games winning the app store lottery to make fortunes on very little developer investment and want that money.
Its like being a business owner who sells their stake to buy lottery tickets. Sure, maybe you do win the jackpot of several hundred million without strings attached but you threw away reliable income for hard work to gamble with total chance.
[+] [-] leesec|6 years ago|reply
Alright bud, let's get back to letting people enjoy whatever sort of games they want and not attacking their intelligence.
My sister-in-law is a doctor, love's candy crush. She doesn't play it for the intellectual stimulation.
[+] [-] rifung|6 years ago|reply
Clash of Clans has a lot of strategy so I don't know why you're using that as an example. Frankly almost any PvP game is going to have a lot of strategy. My friend who has scored twice as high as anyone else in the school in math competitions loved that game.
You seem to have this idea that smart people only do things that require they use their intelligence. I'd argue that is very much not the case.
[+] [-] faet|6 years ago|reply
Outside of PVP WoW doesn't require much thought for the majority of players. Rotations can be automated through things like TellMeWhen and other addons. Then there are addons to tell you what gear is better, when to move, etc. Simming for the most part is a 'solved problem'. And that is only if you want to raid. If you have no interest in raiding you'd be able to do everything by just pressing 2 buttons.
Diablo, you'd be in the top 1% if you just google builds and grind your way there. It's mostly a time thing. And when they had the Ah you could "buy you way to the top".
Starcraft is a pure pvp game so it's slightly different. Skill requirements are probably similar to something like Clash Royal. Although CR can pay to advance (cards). It still requires some general strategy and has a meta.
[+] [-] mrbrowning|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mr_tristan|6 years ago|reply
If they can get, say, 5% of the existing US market to pay $10/month, that's still around 1 billion USD annually.
My guess is that they can probably get a lot more than that.
[+] [-] fullshark|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fnoord|6 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5QRgpjfarY
[+] [-] dannygarcia|6 years ago|reply
Here's a direct link to the press release: http://www.theesa.com/article/65-american-adults-enjoy-playi...
And this is the Essential Facts PDF: http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/EssentialFa...
[+] [-] leksak|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HocusLocus|6 years ago|reply
No wonder I don't play games with my computer! What an awful selection!
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jczhang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
Back then, there was no question of that being a deviant thing, and I thought that only very messed up countries can host such culture where people die playing computer, kill people over videogames and live day and night in internet cafes.
Well, nowadays it became an everyday reality for countries far more developed than ones where this originally started.
[+] [-] OldFatCactus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|6 years ago|reply