I can't even be mad. We (read: gamers as a whole) brought ourselves here. There's no changing it. There's no going back.
Caution: rant following...
I hear and read a truckload of "feedback" regarding the state of the gaming industry and it's monetization schemes. From lootboxes, to DLC, and for us reeeeaaaallly expensive pixels (aka, $1,400 internet spaceships), the price just keeps on climbing. Once upon a time, you spent around $90 for a console and $40-50 on a game and that was it. If it was really complex you might spring for a game guide but once you bought the game, the transaction was over.
Now, it doesn't stop at the game's purchase. That's only the beginning. You spend $60 on the game, another $20 on the super digital deluxe limited edition with early access, and then $10-to-$holyfuckingshit.00 per month on the cash shop. Then you have games that pre-sell advantage by way of progression during the games funding. They are everywhere. SC is one of those. Please don't misunderstand. I know that things are in development, but if an hour long mission pays out 4k and a Hammerhead costs 21.5m, you are buying over 5,000 hours worth of in-game farming (based on citizencon2018 demo numbers). FFS, a 40 hour work week will only net around 2,000 hours per year.
But we buy it anyway. I'm right there with them. I had a Hammerhead in my fleet mere minutes after I found out it existed. I've bought game currency and loot boxes in dozens of games and I will do it again. Hell, I've bought in-game currency in a game that I was currently complaining was P2W... Where does it stop though. EA took a metric fuckton (approx. 2.5 shitloads) of grief over monetization in Star Wars Battlefront II. This occurred at the same time as Activision/Blizzard was in the middle of netting $4,000,000,000.000 profit in "in-game net bookings" (dlc, lootboxes, cash shop, etc.). A.K.A. the same shit EA was getting flamed for. I know there are differences between the two situations, but are there? Really?
The only real differences are in perception, application, and management. The biggest beef is on PVP based games. If someone can jump into a game, pay a ton of cash, and instantly get advantage, people will get mad. It's a legitimate beef. It sucks when you have hundreds of farming hours into a game and someone with a ton more real life financial success can just step in and squash you like a bug before they even know the base mechanics. The second biggest issue is when the developer is an idiot, removes known content prior to release, and places it behind a secondary pay wall. It all boils down to management really. For instance, EA has trash credibility with gamers. Activision/Blizzard on the other hand has some of the best community managers I've ever seen in gaming. One just tossed out monetization and the other carefully planned and managed it.
Is monetization really a problem though? Is it really that absurd? Lets look at alternative costs per hour of entertainment. If you go to the movies (properly equipped with soda and popcorn), it's $10 per hour. If you go to the bar, it can be $20-$100 per hour. If you want some culture, it gets even more expensive. A ticket to "Hamilton" is at minimum $199 and it lasts for 3 hours. You can run numbers from pool halls, bowling alleys, mini golf courses, go-carts, etc. and you will find anywhere from $10-$50 per hour on average for entertainment.
So for the gaming industry, there is plenty of money left on the table. We are used to spending far more money per hour for our entertainment. That's why Activision/Blizzard cleared a drama free $4b in revenue after game sales. The money is there. I can't fault them for trying to get at it. The same goes for Star Citizen. I can't fault them for charging $1,400 to buy a carrier. It sold out and they got a large chunk of money to keep the payroll going. Is it expensive? Hell yea it is. Should it be? Absolutely. It represents thousands of hours in-game. Honestly though, if you compare it with real life entertainment costs I would wager you could get quite a bit more value per hour out of that ship than you could out of bar hopping or cinema visits.
[/rant]
TLDR: The P2W argument is twisted and based on perception. Overpriced pixels aren't actually overpriced to a gamer by price per hour standards. Back in my day, games were uphill both ways in the snow...
Caution: rant following...
I hear and read a truckload of "feedback" regarding the state of the gaming industry and it's monetization schemes. From lootboxes, to DLC, and for us reeeeaaaallly expensive pixels (aka, $1,400 internet spaceships), the price just keeps on climbing. Once upon a time, you spent around $90 for a console and $40-50 on a game and that was it. If it was really complex you might spring for a game guide but once you bought the game, the transaction was over.
Now, it doesn't stop at the game's purchase. That's only the beginning. You spend $60 on the game, another $20 on the super digital deluxe limited edition with early access, and then $10-to-$holyfuckingshit.00 per month on the cash shop. Then you have games that pre-sell advantage by way of progression during the games funding. They are everywhere. SC is one of those. Please don't misunderstand. I know that things are in development, but if an hour long mission pays out 4k and a Hammerhead costs 21.5m, you are buying over 5,000 hours worth of in-game farming (based on citizencon2018 demo numbers). FFS, a 40 hour work week will only net around 2,000 hours per year.
But we buy it anyway. I'm right there with them. I had a Hammerhead in my fleet mere minutes after I found out it existed. I've bought game currency and loot boxes in dozens of games and I will do it again. Hell, I've bought in-game currency in a game that I was currently complaining was P2W... Where does it stop though. EA took a metric fuckton (approx. 2.5 shitloads) of grief over monetization in Star Wars Battlefront II. This occurred at the same time as Activision/Blizzard was in the middle of netting $4,000,000,000.000 profit in "in-game net bookings" (dlc, lootboxes, cash shop, etc.). A.K.A. the same shit EA was getting flamed for. I know there are differences between the two situations, but are there? Really?
The only real differences are in perception, application, and management. The biggest beef is on PVP based games. If someone can jump into a game, pay a ton of cash, and instantly get advantage, people will get mad. It's a legitimate beef. It sucks when you have hundreds of farming hours into a game and someone with a ton more real life financial success can just step in and squash you like a bug before they even know the base mechanics. The second biggest issue is when the developer is an idiot, removes known content prior to release, and places it behind a secondary pay wall. It all boils down to management really. For instance, EA has trash credibility with gamers. Activision/Blizzard on the other hand has some of the best community managers I've ever seen in gaming. One just tossed out monetization and the other carefully planned and managed it.
Is monetization really a problem though? Is it really that absurd? Lets look at alternative costs per hour of entertainment. If you go to the movies (properly equipped with soda and popcorn), it's $10 per hour. If you go to the bar, it can be $20-$100 per hour. If you want some culture, it gets even more expensive. A ticket to "Hamilton" is at minimum $199 and it lasts for 3 hours. You can run numbers from pool halls, bowling alleys, mini golf courses, go-carts, etc. and you will find anywhere from $10-$50 per hour on average for entertainment.
So for the gaming industry, there is plenty of money left on the table. We are used to spending far more money per hour for our entertainment. That's why Activision/Blizzard cleared a drama free $4b in revenue after game sales. The money is there. I can't fault them for trying to get at it. The same goes for Star Citizen. I can't fault them for charging $1,400 to buy a carrier. It sold out and they got a large chunk of money to keep the payroll going. Is it expensive? Hell yea it is. Should it be? Absolutely. It represents thousands of hours in-game. Honestly though, if you compare it with real life entertainment costs I would wager you could get quite a bit more value per hour out of that ship than you could out of bar hopping or cinema visits.
[/rant]
TLDR: The P2W argument is twisted and based on perception. Overpriced pixels aren't actually overpriced to a gamer by price per hour standards. Back in my day, games were uphill both ways in the snow...
