Soapbox: Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy (And How to Stop It)

It's easy to say that devs need to stop doing this practice. I'm very curious to the profits that the companies are making per game.

Good article. My solution: Vote with your money. (Its the only way it changes)

1. Stop pre-ordering games, nobody needs to buy day one (you can wait a while to see how things turn out)

2. Don't buy Season passes UNTIL you know what you get with it / when everythings out.

Etc.

@Marre35 My point exactly

If you charge full price for a game, you better leave the micro-transactions at the door, if it cost less then the standard price or was a F2P then sure bring it in, I just won't buy or use the micro transactions. And I put password prompts to purchase so that I can regain my composure in case it gets the better of me.

From a business pov I don't know if I can blame publishers for not 'leaving money on the table'. If someone's willing to pay micro-transactions more power to em.
As far as me purchasing them goes I once went mad buying dresses in Lighting Returns: FFXIII. No regrets!

Full price game's shouldn't have them in full stop, season pass's are only just acceptable but anything else should be included in the full price, nothing else is acceptable, I buy season pass's that's all.

I also prefer MGS4 over 5. At least MGS4 with all its flaws is actual complete game. Unlike 5.

With pre-order bonuses, DLC, and microtransactions, games have become complex things - and I think that's one of my main gripes with it all.

Microtransactions themselves have me divided. On the one hand, I used to think "don't like them, don't buy them", but over time the very concept has grinded me down. Now, if I boot up a £50 game and see 'additional costs' it just annoys me. I agree that there's something fundamentally wrong about seeing such things in fully priced, retail games.

There are a lot of angles to consider with microstransactions, though. Like, with Destiny, for example, is there an argument that it's kind of an MMO? And instead of a subscription fee, you're paying for expansions in order to keep up with the game, while the microtransactions are going to help keep things funded? There's certainly at least an element of that, I feel, even if the first two expansions were horribly overpriced.

Anyway, it's a good talking point. If I had my way I'd just ditch them altogether, no questions asked, but I admittedly don't know enough about each game's situation. A publisher would probably tell us that microtransactions are needed in order to make a profit since budgets are going up, but if that's the case, how come games like The Witcher 3 are supposedly doing fine?

Complex is right.

@kyleforrester87 @ztpayne7 I suppose, but let's take Destiny for example: Activision spent $300 million on advertising alone. Even in the unlikely event that Destiny would make a loss, it doesn't matter: Activision wouldn't care because they always get plenty of money from properties. In the AAA industry, commercial flops are rare, and even if a game flops, a publisher usually has plenty of other properties to fall back on. In the case of indie developers, they may need to make more of a profit in order to stay afloat, but they find other means: donations, merchandise and the like, which doesn't interrupt or affect gameplay.

Also Kyle - it's fine that you buy games with microtransactions in, and many games do use them sparingly, but all I suggest is that, if a game uses them in a way that harms the quality or fun factor of a game, don't succumb to them - it's money wasted. Still, your views are your views!

@Marre35 I will keep preordering games that i love no question about it. But i will not buy cheap and bad DLC. I totally agree dont buy seasonpasses blind i have seen it with batman i just buy the few singleplayer contents i like and leave the rest.

"That creates a knock-on effect that forces others to either also pay and not get crushed, or not pay and have less fun of a time."

Fifa 16 Pro Clubs anyone? Played through 10 games and moved from a rating of 74 to 75 during in game progression. With (usually paid for) boosts my characters now 78. That's the problem In ten games only 1 stat had progressed where as I can pay £5 and have my stats rise in an instant. Its insane - and has put me off playing a bit.

"But here's the thing: every main Guitar Hero game since 2 has had at least 70 songs, with Warriors of Rock having a whopping 93 on disc. Guitar Hero Live only has 42."

Great example - this is my major bug bear. I don't mind 'expansions' they used to be a god send on PC. What's happened more and more though over the last 7 years is a cutting of quests that should be in the main game. Ass creed 2, mass effect 3 etc. Or selling us day 1 mode dlc that could easily be put in the retail release (usually a horde mode) Crackdown 2, Alien, COD etc etc

@ShogunRok Exactly - treat the fans right and they'll pay you back eventually - whether it's donating, buying merch, buying DLC or buying your next game.

@Nomnom @xmeadx This is my attitude as well - microtransactions deserve no place in a game that price. Some F2P games like Loadout use them especially well so that they're not pay to win, though, but I seldom use them too.

@BrianC Good point, but the thing is that there are plenty of ways for publishers to make money without affecting gameplay, and we as consumers need to guide them towards that by voicing our opinions through how we spend our cash

The Witcher 3 is one of the few games to get dlc right recently with others either having extortionate season passes (batman) or micro transactions. Destiny have treated fans quite poorly as a whole even though I have enjoyed the taken king, I won't be paying for any more. Star wars looks like it has purposely removed modes to sell separately, especially the hero mode, so I'm not going near that £100 my only game.

Strangely it seems to be the smaller companies who are getting this right with the aforementioned Witcher and it's cheap season pass which so far appears to have a lot of content and the rather excellent Rocket League. Who are gave the game away with ps plus (for a lesser fee I would guess) and are adding free content later this year. These are the companies I want to support going forward, not the likes of WB and EA who don't seem to remotely care about their customers

@Flaming_Kaiser I never usually pre order games, but Just Cause 3 was a definite buy for me. If a DLC is high quality, buy it - it encourages devs to put more effort into things like that.

@themcnoisy I was going to include Pro Clubs in the article but completely forgot about it. But yeah, it's a great example - our Pro Club knows this better than anyone!

@carlos82 Amen: tye smaller developers need to treat the fans well to guarantee income and that's why they're so generous!

I feel that games that offer purely cosmetic items, or are free to play, should be allowed to have Microtransactions. Nobody else has any excuse. Day 1 DLC is sickening because we all know it's just existing content that was cut out of the game to make a quick buck.

@Anchorsam_9 With Disgaea 5 I got a reversible cover, artbook, audio cd and manual. Similar to Witcher 3 In many ways.

On the bad side there's a low Level warrior character in my base with DLC emblazoned upon him as an entry point to the store. Arrrghh!

Metal Gear Solid V - had a blast earlier and I am at the point were a lot of gear has become available but I don't have the funds. There are also countdown timers on the building of said gear. This was definitely a micro transaction mechanic pulled before release. I can put Kojimas job on it.

Just don't buy the games, wait for a sale or the GOTY editions, it won't cut out all the micro transactions but it will mean less money for the publisher. Also a petition or petitions organised by gaming sites could garner many signatures against this sort of thing.

_{Language -Tasuki-}

Good article, but in regards to Destiny, it's my understanding that Activision demands Bungie to release more dlc. It's not a case of the "developer deciding that they want more money from you", but the publisher demands the developer to provide new revenue streams, hence the dances and so on.

It's hard for me to comment since it's easy to trash them and be done with it, but I honestly don't think microtransactions are bad if it's truly optional and balanced. My main issue stems from how they're not 90% of the time. They should be more like time saver packs, which are optional and only really get used if you don't want to unlock everything, but it's not hard as hell to get stuff normally. When microtransactions get involved, alot of times the people who don't pay get shafted and have to go above and beyond to get goodies. That's just unfair.

Despite my excitement for Uncharted 4, I am worried about how microtransactions and DLC will be handled. SFV can potentially do it right, since the DLC is technically free and can be unlocked via in game currency. They just have to make sure that you don't have play 100 hours just to get one unlock. To me, it seems like more of a matter of doing it right.

I don't care much about microtransactions, but the consumer-unfriendly use of them is something I have a problem with.

There's no excuse for MGS V having the degree of microtransactions it has. None. Konami will never see another penny from me after this debacle.
Destiny is a weird one though, as of the release of TTK, Bungie are releasing further story and multiplayer for free, development of which will be presumably funded via these microtransactions.
I don't think that the dlc pricing was fair up to this point (especially when the legendary edition was released, and year one players got a shader. Cheers.), but going forward, this could be a happy medium.
Even though I'm having to take a break from Destiny.
One issue I'd like to bring up though, is that AAA releases cost roughly 10 times what they used to in 2005 to make, and are the same price to buy that they were in 1997. Allowing for inflation etc, that money needs to be made somewhere. If this means more microtransactions as opposed to an extra fiver on the rrp, many would see it as a preferable option. Not me, I'd rather pay the devs a fair price upfront, but only if they make a quality game.

@blah01 You've given me an idea, though petitions aren't usually successful.

@Wesker I understand that it's often the publishers that introduce these things, but the way "Deej", the Bungie community manager, has handled this stuff is kind of annoying, he seems a little condescending. Still, it's not his fault

Ok, some fair points here, although you fail to mention that games have cost roughly the same since the early 90s, inflation affecting them little to none. I remember some N64 games going even above the $60 price. How can we expect games to make profit when the big AAA ones can cost tens of millions. We can either have season passes and microtransactions, or $100-150 games. It's one or the other unfortunately and it's to be expected.

I agree with your article Sam (in sentiment) but I will say Destiny is a funny one, its kind of along the lines of an MMO but without a sub fee so its a bit trickier - I really don't like Bungies practices with the first two expansions but we'll see if they keep the good will they've had with Taken King - personally if they want to charge £5 for a zombie dance and someone wants to pay for it... Go for it, cosmetic stuff really doesn't bother me.

Season passes however I have no interest in, I'm loving Syndicate but I won't buy the season pass.. Not because its ubisoft but because generally speaking I have zero interest in expansions to a game, with so many games available and coming out, I'll finish something, resell it LONG before any DLC comes - and that's another problem for devs... People like me doing stuff like that, which some may say has a knock on where by they HAVE to generate extra income because of second hand copies.

What's the solution? Lower prices for digital games is the obvious answer (over £100 for SW battlefront premium? EA can do one), but the knock on problem is they don't want to p*ss off the retailers who sell their hardware.

Its a complicated industry in many ways, and just saying that we can't let companies get away with DLC prices and micro transactions is all well and good - but the very real knock on to a stance like that is developers walk away from a high risk, at times fickle, and risky business - just like Konami are... And do we want to be in a position where games like MGS V aren't made? Because I don't =(

_{Language - get2sammyb}

@Johnnycide I agree and it's nice to see someone bring those points up, but they're actually cheaper than they used to be.

If a game was £40 in 1997 then it should be £67 now. In fact, games were often more expensive than £40, me and another poster on Push Square remember Street Fighter II being between £65 to £70. That would've been around 1992. Adjusting for inflation, that game would've cost £125 to £135.

A fighting game with 8 characters and 2 modes cost up to £135 and yet nowadays people complain that a fighting game with 40 characters and more modes, including several online modes, is a rip-off at £40 and that any additional DLC is extortionate. It does make me worry that the industry is going to face a lot of difficulty since the average gamer (at least online) seems clueless about this and genuinely thinks £40-50 is a lot more than games used to be.

There's a difference between paying for a well rounded expansion, as in Driveclub Bikes, or in a blatent attempt at cashing in like the songs on Guitar Hero Live or FIFA. If you pay £50 or more, then you shouldn't have to constantly top up your experience with small purchases here and there.

This could be seen as the revenge for the collapse of the War on Pre-Owned?

A s I have said, I don't mind Season Passes as they are better value than buying ALL of the DLC individually. CoD for example hasn't felt to me like the on-disc content is reduced in order to sell that content as DLC. CoD4 (the first game and DLC I bought) as a lot less content than the most recent CoD games. Also the DLC content has increased yet the cost per pack has remained somewhat constant. Whilst I know the Season Pass is expensive at £40 - its £8 cheaper than buying all the packs individually. I also feel that the DLC often adds to the overall experience and longevity of this franchise. Its very different to Batman: Arkham Knight which has just cosmetic items in its DLC/Season Pass content

I don't play any other game like Destiny but in terms of cost per hour (even though I had the Season Pass), I spent more hours on the Dark Below content - playing the additional story with each class, multiple raids etc, than I did in playing the Witcher 3 to its story conclusion (and that included many of the side quests and hunting down the majority of treasures and map markers too). I don't know how World of Warcraft implemented its Expansions for example and whether or not those people who didn't buy where left out of certain activities - if it even had these. In terms of hours invested though Destiny represents the best cost per hour of any game I have played. I know it has recently added Micro-transactions and as much a I hate these, I also know that these are purely cosmetic. What I don't understand though and this goes for practically all micro-transactions is how they justify the costs.

The majority of Micro-transactions in AAA games are purely cosmetic (although I know some are not). Destinys 18 Emotes would cost the same as the whole of the Taken King to purchase. According to Angry Joe, to acquire all of the cosmetics (assuming you don't get duplicates or play to unlock) in Halo 5 would cost over £1.1k!! Battlefield 3's unlock all gear costs more than the game does to buy now - not only do I consider this expensive though, I do think it also cheapens and belittles the efforts of those that unlock these through play.

Games like CoD, you knew a player had spent a lot of time mastering a weapon if you saw them with 'Gold' camo but as they now sell better looking camo's, its rare to see people using these. It also takes away a lot of the desire to go through these challenges for a camo that you won't use and looks worse than the majority of the ones you can buy.

I do feel that often micro-transactions, even if its just cosmetic, can take something away from the game. I really do think that in-game unlocks etc in a full priced game should NEVER be sold as mcro-transactions - things like Battlefields unlock gear, ME3's bundles (that can be bought with in game currency) as it takes away something from the experience, the prestige and significance of unlocking these through play etc.

Lets be honest, the likes of Activision, EA etc are not struggling financially. They are reporting huge profits every quarter - even with the costs of development, the huge studios, the time it takes to create these games before they can be sold to start recuperating on that investment etc. As far as I remember, despite the huge investment and marketing costs, Destiny allegedly made a profit in the first 24hrs of going on sale.

Thanks for all of your responses! Sorry if I don't get around to responding back to them, there's a helluva lot on this article

@get2sammyb I was just trying to find some info on that, funnily enough. Everyone says that - I've said it hundreds of times myself - but I wonder if it's just a myth, or at least a common exaggeration. I just found a scan of an old newspaper from the N64 era saying that while CDs only cost $5 to "press", cartridges "can cost up to $20". So a few things there. The whole "can" and "up to" sounds a bit vague, and also would it really cost $5 to burn a CD en masse in a factory? It'd be nice to actually hear from a neutral party (i.e. not Nintendo in the 90s trying to justify charging way more for N64 games) about the real costs of this.

I'm so put off by the the add ons I'm looking else were for my games. And witcher was my best move this year. Should be game of the year.

Sam Brooke deserves some sort of award for writing this. Even if it's just for challenging the incredible greed that surrounds Destiny, something I have yet to see any other site or magazine properly do, even though it is clearly one of the most obvious examples this year of how to treat game customers as poorly as possible.

You'd think they were scared of missing out on all that Destiny advertising money or something. Or getting an early review copy of the next game.

You're right on The Witcher as well, I was extremely impressed with how generous they have been, all those awards are all the more deserved.

You pay $60 for the game.

You pay another $30-50 for season pass.

You potentially spend another $100+ on microtransactions.

You just spent more on one game than an entire handheld console costs. Ya, it's a problem. But an equally perplexing issue is the fact so many condone or casually dismiss these practices.

Someone needs to lobby the government to regulate this sort of thing. Because obviously gamers for the most part aren't standing against it. I've even been guilty on occasion. But no more. I won't buy online only games, I won't buy multiplayer only games, and from hence forth I won't spend a dime on any content beyond the game itself and possibly a justified season pass.

@Tasuki I think the golden age is different for everyone. PSone days will always be hard to top for me. More unforgettable classics than I can count.

Curious - how profitable was the Witcher 3? Do we know?

I don't like it so I don't buy it, best way to fight it is to make it not pay to do so.

Every single developer, including Naughty Dog should take notes from CD Projekt RED and the way they conduct business. Hearts of Stone, like it was mentioned in the article, is a prime example of value for money, not only it is an incredible piece of DLC, but offers so much content for a $10 price.

Wholeheartedly agree regarding MGSV micro-transactions, greed at its finest.

Still waiting for the "our game has no microtransactions.." bandwagon to roll out.

HUGE COMMENT REPLY COMMENT

These are all the comments I can reply to today, so i'll check back tomorrow for more:

@DerMeister I agree here, there are cases in which microtransactions can be used too, but mostly they're for the worse, and can ruin games with them

@Johnnycide Like you, I'd rather pay more for a good quality game with more gameplay than have to keep paying little amounts that add up just to play the game properly.

@get2sammyb I disagree a little your COD example - the Call of Duty series is almost always guaranteed money, however bad or unchanged it is. It's a brand name that will always be popular - the FIFA of shooters, if you will - and with its huge deals with Sony, Doritos and other such companies, as well as its eSports prominence, I doubt it struggles to make money. You make a good point with Destiny having servers to run, but don't you feel that, if a player has paid for the DLCs and spent quite a bit on the game, they should get some emotes as a little thank you? Treating fans well will make them come back, after all.

Also, about your point about the "Golden age" of games not being now - think about the huge variety of games on offer. Go back 10 or so years and you wouldn't have as many bedroom developers making games, you wouldn't find AAA publishers working on smaller-scale projects (Ubisoft and Sony are good examples) and the huge variety of tech on offer means that developers can innovate to their hearts desire. Sure, the PS2 era was excellent, but I have a feeling that this generation has some excellent surprises to come.

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi Hugely agree here - there are so many games that have open worlds, collectibles and other such things that really, really shouldn't - case in point, Assassin's Creed. I'd prefer it if they scaled things back a bit.

@DrClayman But what if developers and publishers spent less time on monetizing and more money on improving the quality of their games - surely if a game is good, more people will buy it?

@Cron_13 There is no definite answer to this problem, rather a load of smaller answers. Season passes and microtransactions don't feel like the way to go.

@Matroska Great point! I know it's not really a fighting game, but WWE 2K16 has the largest ever roster in series history - that's value that people look for.

@ChoZanWan Witcher 3: Hearts of Stone sales say it all - good quality expansions always sell well and make the developer seem more trustworthy.

@BAMozzy This is my main point - huge publishers don't really need to worry about money that much, they really shouldn't. Make a better game and spend less money cutting bits out, and more people on the whole will buy it.

@LieutenantFatman I disagree but thanks a lot! I just felt quite angry at the amount of games getting microtransactions in the past couple weeks and got all this stuff off my chest.

@Tasuki To be fair I said it was "a" golden age of gaming - there have been many. Like you said, the 16-bit era was excellent, as well as the N64 era, the PS2 era and all that kinda stuff. Sorry to put you off. And for the record, I'm a PS2 man

@JaxonH Good good - the best way to convince publishers to change is to vote with your money. I dismiss most games with always-online DRM and microtransactions, but of course I'll check them out if they have good reviews or I like the gameplay
@Mega-Gazz @slampog In the first half of 2015, CD Projekt Red made $62.5 million profit - and that's before Hearts of Stone released. Just goes to show.

@FaultyDroid I hate this too - most notably when Battlefront was announced as having no microtransactions before being given a really expensive season pass

@Anchorsam_9 wow. That's a long comment!

@Mega-Gazz it was (deservedly) one of the best selling games this year, so I'd come down on the side of "massively".

As with most of my opinions these days, it varies. I don't feel Micro-transactions in games like MGS5, Destiny, or Tales of Zestiria hurt anyone. It's a simple way to 'show support' for a game you truly like while either saving a bit of time, or getting a slightly unique cosmetic item.

My opinions of Desinty are nothing new. I feel 100% ripped off for paying retail price with that game came out, and with each additional DLC, I feel more and more angry about it. Locking out content for those who don't pay is beyond unacceptable to me. I personally feel like Bungie cut content in order to market it as DLC, but as annoying as that is, it didn't bother me that much (I should have researched before spending money).

Another game that comes to mind is GT6. I felt like the ability to convert real money to in game currency didn't really hurt anyone, but at the same time, it felt like MAYBE the in game rewards were lower to help persuade people to buy into their cash shop.

All in all, DLC is here to stay, and if done correct, can be awesome. Plenty of devs still do a great job with DLC so, as consumers, we just need to try our best to support good practices and avoid bad ones.

Looking at the fact that a lot of games are profitable in a 'short' amount of time, with relatively small number of sales - compared to the number of 'consoles/gamers' it could be sold too - shows that despite the escalating costs and consistent game pricing, greed obviously plays a huge factor.

From Wiki - The game (Witcher 3) sold over 6 million copies in the six weeks following its launch. Those sales drove the studio to make a profit of 236 million Polish złoty ($62.5 million USD) in the first half of 2015.

I am not saying that this profit is purely from just game sales but this equates to over $10 per game sold and we know this took quite a few years to develop and was 'delayed' few times too. It also had (according to Wiki) 1.5m pre-orders. Considering this is sold on PC, PS4 and XB1, the potential sales (gamers on all 3 formats combined) compared to actual sales is relatively small.

I know CD Project Red are not that large compared to some studios and their overheads in Poland are unlikely to be as high as they are in over places too. If you look at a lot of AAA games though, they don't need to sell that many copies to be 'profitable'. All this talk that games need to 'micro-transactions' to make up for the rising costs and time it takes for development whilst game prices have remained constant is BS!!

The PS4 is the biggest selling console in terms of sales at similar points in their life cycle, even the XB1 has sold more than previous gen consoles at the similar point means that there are more gamers, more potential sales of games etc. According to Wiki, Uncharted 3 has sold over 6m copies in 4yrs and no doubt been a massive commercial and financial success - a similar number of sales that the Witcher 3 managed in 6wks. I know it benefits from being on more platforms but it also does show the difference in the number of sales from just 4 years ago between 2 GOTY's.- Skyrim sold 700,000 copies in its first week compared to 1.5m pre-orders for the Witcher 3 and 4m in 2 weeks!

@Anchorsam_9
Groovy, glad to help any good ideas....

@Anchorsam_9 Not sure what part you're disagreeing with, I was agreeing with what you wrote!

Two solutions:

1. Voice your opinion via email/social media.
Or
2. Speak with your wallet (choose not to buy into it..)

While I understand that game development has got very expensive this generation I don't agree with the price of dlc this gen. For example, Batman Arkum Knight priced the season pass at $40 and what you got was NOT worth that asking price. Also, Destiny priced the first and second expansion at £20 each which was crazy. I decided to boycott both of those games expansions

One of the only companies I will happily pay money to in advance is Bathesda as I have been playing there games and buying there dlc and I have always felt that I have always got my moneys worth and then some.

Also CD Projekt Red is a developer that has recently shown the industry how dlc should be done/priced.

Im happy that I don't play alot of online multiplayer games as they seem to be the worse for ripping of their customers imo.

Regarding micro transactions and DLC I think you really need to be a savvy gamer. Each game with these types of options have to be looked at on a case by case basis, IMO. Some devs out right rip you off by forcing you to pay more for parts of a game that were obviously lopped off at the end to get a little more money. Other devs simply use it as cosmetic options to personalize your experience, at your own leisure. I always look at these things differently on every game. If I have already completed a game and really liked how it played, and ended, I will be tempted to buy extra DLC content. If I buy a game and it feels like there are parts missing just to get me to buy those missing parts later on, then I am through with that game and usually trade it in. This is also another reason why I prefer physical copies, in cases like this I can recoup a little of what I feel I lost.

Oh, and I 100 percent pre ordered Fallout 4, something I don't normally do, but this is one of my top 3 franchises and is a can't miss for me personally. (Actually I bought two copies, so I don't have to share!)

I blame the mobile market for this crap. How can you expect candy crush to make a bazillion dollars and some corporate bozo at activision not notice and say "Gee, we should have random gift packages and time outs in the next call of duty". Hell, it was in battlfield 4 with the stupid briefcases and paying to unlock guns.

@GraveLordXD I agree, I have been playing since atari and this is the least excited I have ever been about gaming.

@Johnnycide Where has it been stated that any story/expansion content will be released for free? They said Eververse would help the "liveteam", that's all I've seen.

CoD's season pass this year is cheap, it's £80 for the full game with season pass and a few extra goodie's on the PS store. That's incredibly cheap by today's standard usualy it's £55 for the game and £40 for the pass I think, pretty sure that's what I've paid in the past.

If a F2P like Warframe lets you beat the game without buying anything, then AAA that ask for money up front, at the price tag of 60$, should give no more than optional aesthetic DLC, and that's as far as I'd push it. Nothing game changing.

@Grawlog That's a terrible attitude all-around. MMO's don't need microtransactions any more than any other genre, and there IS a fundamental difference between microtransactions and more classical ongoing charging mechanisms - required subscriptions keep gameplay and finances completely separate (the player isn't presented with gameplay choices that are dependent on finances, or financial choices that alter their gameplay), as do expansion packs, for the most part. Even the titans you've mentioned, WoW and (from what I know of it) Everquest, deliberately held to this line in the sand for quite a while.

Without reading through the whole thread, I think that's really one of the important distinctions to be made here - whether the consumer is paying to play the game, or to modify it.

That said, it's a linear relationship between the two concepts, and it always has to add up to the development costs.
Cost_to_consumer(playing the game) + cost_to_consumer(modifying the game) = cost_to_develop_game.
That equation is inviolate. Back in the good old days, the cost_to_consumer(modifying the game) was generally fixed at 0, and the cost_to_consumer(playing the game) was higher, at least in the US.

For example, Final Fantasy VII launched in 1997, at a price (as best I can determine) of $50 - that's equal to $74 in 2015 money. Go back to the cartridge generations, and prices climb even higher. Just as importantly, prices stayed high; games didn't get slashed by 75% within three months to Steam sales.

Want to kill microtransactions? Refusing to buy them is all well and good, but just as importantly, we as consumers have to be willing to foot the increased bill from, well, the macrotransactions. If you REALLY want to vote with your wallet, stump up more cash for your games.
Buy new.
Buy full-price.
Buy the exorbitant CE's with the physical swag, if you want (but that's a double-edged sword, since CE's are riddled with DLC of their own these days).
If you must hold out for a GotY edition to not get burned on DLC, at least buy that edition new and full price.

@Marre35 Yes, the issue is that mainstream gamers don't care are consider these issues. So they just buy them without a care.

I hope the climate changes for the gaming industry though :/

@Grawlog Well, in my defense, your post mostly caught my eye as just the bottom element in the sixty-long discussion I didn't have time to read, so I kind of skimmed it. The only part I really intended to counter your post was the first paragraph; the rest of it isn't meant as a reaction to you, but rather as what I honestly feel.

I do still disagree with a lot of your conclusions:

• PC games have a richer and more varied history than just MMO's, and MMO's themselves have demonstrated that the business model can be sustained, at least for the "winners", without microtransactions.
• Fatalism is terrible and never helped anything - concerted change CAN happen, man's point of view on seeing it, both in time and scale, is just crap.
• "If you don't like it, just ignore it" is and always has been a flat-out insulting line of reasoning.
• I don't play video games for the thrilling experience of going to the grocery store. I don't go to the grocery store for the thrilling experience of going to the grocery store, either. I go to stock up on food, so that I can come home and make from my ingredients a sumptuous meal. The day my toast asks me to swipe my credit card to upgrade to salted butter.... FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU

Ahem. Putting all that aside, though, your reasoning is well-written, and your tone very accomodating, by internet standards. I think my disagreement with you comes down to a matter of taste - you seem to prefer the lesser evil of microtransactions to high fixed game costs such as subscriptions and expensive expansions, while I find the pollution of gameplay with money that microtransactions bring to be far more offensive than paying more up-front.

Though I disagree with it, I respect your opinion, and that it gave me a springboard for more clearly articulating my own. No hard feelings?

The industry as a whole is greedy, nothing anyone will do can stop that. Most devs will try to squeeze every last penny out of their customers, and the only way we can thank those that don't (CD Projekt Red is my first one in mind as well) we can only encourage by supporting them if we like their product.

The problem is that microtransactions and DLC come in way too many flavors and styles to paint with broad strokes. Nintendo has finally dipped their toes into DLC and in some ways it has huge value/$$ (MK8) and in others, it is maddeningly in the complete other direction (Splatoon). Any DLC that adds to a game I like in substantial ways is something I am all for. I just avoid DLC that has a smattering of content that is all over the map (aka Arkham Knight Season Pass).

My only problem with microtransactions is when they go beyond cosmetic and help you in a way that can't be gained with time put into a game. Shark cash in GTA V? Silly waste of money to me, i'd rather earn it, but I can understand people with free cash and limited time taking the plunge. I think this is a generational thing, with a set of gamers introducted via FB games and the like where microtransactions rule. I had a pong system, so I'm an old fart who thinks most microtransactions are either silly or game breaking, and I tend to not play the games with game breaking microtransactions. Can we call them MTAs? Let's acronym it for us lazy typers

I also dont mind fighting game character roster DLC, as I understand how much time can go into new characters and how these games come and go so dev's need to hold interest.

I've come to accept, however, that costumes as paid DLC is here to stay, and not a thing i can do about it. Well, except not buy it stand alone, tho if it comes with other things I like, I'll usually take the plunge.

@LieutenantFatman And I was disagreeing that I should get an award because really shouldn't! Thanks for the praise though!

@Anchorsam_9 Oh I see! No problem.

Little bit of news for you all: Activision just bought the Candy Crush developers for $6 billion. Does all that steep Destiny DLC and microtransactions seem a little greedy now?

That's more than Disney paid for Marvel, by the way.

"Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy" Because of Microsoft. I knew once they joined the Console business all those years ago it would co$t Gamers more in the future & they day has come(well not that i buy DLC anyway)

Good article and although I don't 100% agree...it's a good topic for discussions I personally don't know much about the games industry but my possibly naive thoughts are below:
1) People commenting saying don't pre-order games...not sure why this is an issue? If we think a game looks good then we can choose to "reserve" it for a day one purchase. The same way I remember waiting in HMV for a new album to come out (before I read reviews)
2) Do games cost more to make? Should they cost more? Are companies keeping the cost of games lower by adding DLC, MicroT? Without analysing the figures it's difficult to tell
3) I think the real issue is that developers/publishers haven't quite figured out how to market the additional content to us in a way that we are happy with (although will we ever be happy!). Take Destiny for example...would they have been better just having a subscription? Should they have made people aware that their would be ongoing costs?
4) I feel with nearly every game I have that they are GREAT value for money. At a base game of £50, I maybe get between 10 - 200 hours from it.

I suppose without being able to study financials I'll never really know whether they're being greedy or trying to run a profitable business.

I felt this way with a lot of games. Little Big Planet I think is pretty expensive...$2 or more for just a costume??? Then there's Buzz for PS3. I bought a few on here to add more questions, but asking for $8 is pretty far fetched. The only DLC that I've ever bought is ones that are $2 or less, but it needs to be more than just costumes or outfits. In all honesty, I feel it's just a way for developers to earn more money, but now I see the Lego games are doing this and even more downloadable titles are doing this now. Seems that everyone wants in because all of the females with their cell-game phone would pay anything to play those dumb games.

@JoeBlogs My point exactly. The games are expensive to make, the game costs $60 when it comes out, and if the game doesn't sell well, they lose the money. It's a tough business, so with all of these micro transactions, they can earn a little more to the costs of making the title.

It might of been mentioned but I also feel microtransaction's take the feeling of achievment's out of game's, you used to unlock mount's etc in MMORPG's by killing certain bosse's and drop's etc and you would feel like a million dollar's riding round on one because they were so rare, now everybody has one simply because you can buy them from a store thus watering down the whole game, it's come to a point now I feel where dev's are putting more effort into the bought item's than the unlocked item's which is another dangerous road ESO is a good example. MT's might/might not be needed but they certainly are NOT good for game's.

A very heavily weighted poll result and yet people keep buying expensive DLC and micro-transaction content.
Keep giving them the money they want and the problem will only get worse.

Sometimes companies do push too hard with the microtransactions and it does make the game fail. Dead Space 3 is a good example I think. First two games were great but it was made clear the third one was going to be built around microtransactions and an extended grind as a consequence. So it sold poorly. And so no more Dead Space games which is a real shame as it was a really good universe. I'm pretty sure EA never admitted it was their fault.

Activision have also announced a profit of $158bn in a quarter - around $632bn per year If they maintain that profit margin!! It is down on last years equivalent quarter by $15bn ($173bn)

As I said earlier in terms of cost per hour, Destiny's DLC at £20 (even more expensive in the UK compared to $20) still represented very good value compared to a lot of AAA game releases in terms of cost per hour for me and that's without playing the MP and maps that it came with. If I added up all the hours I spent on The Dark Below with all 3 of my characters, It equates to more hours than CD Project Reds The Witcher 3 which I paid double for. I am not saying the Witcher 3 is bad value - far from it but its to put some perspective on things. Infamous: Second Son cost the same price at launch as the Witcher 3 yet can be finished to platinum in a relatively short time making its cost per hour even higher. My highest Cost per Hour game this gen has probably been Wolfenstein: the new Order at over £1 per hour of game time - compared to around 5p per hour for Destiny's DLC.

I know that 'value' is individual - it really depends on the person, their perspective etc. Destiny's DLC did add 'something' to every aspect and no doubt the story part costs more to develop than a MP map does due to voice actor costs, scriptwriters costs etc etc (even if they don't write a good script). A single person could design a map! I look at everything individually - If I think something adds to the overall experience and my enjoyment to justify the cost,I will buy. Something like CoD's DLC in the past as proved financially worthwhile to me, the season pass therefore makes it even more financially worthwhile - it saves me money on the content I would buy anyway and often has 'extra' bonuses too - early access, extra cosmetics, bonus content like an extra map all for less money. Cosmetics don't add enough to warrant the cost for me in the majority of circumstances and in some cases, their inclusion has actually impacted negatively - looking at things like BF's unlock gear and CoD's Advanced Supply Drops! As I said, even cosmetics can negatively impact the game, why bother going for in game unlocks when the paid for ones are so much better? the prestige of unlocking things through natural progression is also lost!

Another thing to consider with modern gaming compared to the games of yesterday is that modern designers have a lot of tools and engines specifically designed to make game development easier and quicker. I know it seems like games take a long time to develop but they are also a lot bigger, more complex and more detailed too than ever before.

@joseth418 on several rival sites which I won't name (one in particular is full of histrionic SJW's and such. You know who I mean) and here after a quick Google search:
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/62279/20151009/destiny-bungie-switching-out-paid-expansions-cosmetic-dlc-free-story-content.htm

I wholeheartedly agree with the article. MGSV is a fab game but when I got to the FOB section and I realised that it was skewed to make me spend more money on a game I bought on day 1, I was not impressed.

Any paid for content that gives a player an advantage over others is ridiculous. I am happy for cosmetic content to be chargeable but why should I sink my time into getting good at something that someone can pay to get to the same level?

I rarely, if ever, pay for additional content, particularly if I have payed full price for the game at launch. The only exceptions are where the content has really offered something new. A few years ago I did buy the Burial at Sea DLC for Bioshock Infinite because I could see some love and care had gone into it. That said, the pricing has got to be right. Anything under £10 is ok but that is rarely the case.

I appreciate games are high risk and expensive to develop. If game companies truly need additional income to be able to keep publishing games then perhaps the whole pricing model needs to be rethought out and for gamers to have a clear idea of what they are purchasing. I would prefer that games release with different pricing structures for packages that clearly mark out what the difference in packages actually are. I know this happens to some extent but better that then get your new purchase home and after 20+ hours of play realise that there are microtransactions.

I never have, and never will support games that use micro transactions.

@Matroska
Totally. I'm pretty sure N64 games where extortionate back in the day. I think my first three games cost more than the actual console.

I love DLC! Throw me rocks if you want but I really love DLC, Mass Effect 2, The Witcher 3, Mario Kart 8, Fire Emblem Awakening, all amazing games with amazing DLC. We have great games with mediocre DLC too, but at least honest, like Borderlands chapter's dlc, Valkyria Chronicles. We have games with free DLC too like The Witcher 3 and MH4U which is always amazing.
That said, I'll pay for any great dlc like those aforementioned, but microtransations have no place in my wallet, and I'll never pay for it, and to me will put me off the game, like Metal Gear 5 and MKX

Make at least like Bravely Default which is totally unnecessary to beat the game

@get2sammyb It's off topic, but yes they should! Fans are getting ripped off, and clubs have recently signed a £4 billion TV deal, so prices should be cut!

@Spirit_Psalm91 Like I say, vote with your money. Money talks, after all

@WARDIE I do that too - if a DLC is priced the same as a game, I never buy it. Just goes to show how good value Hearts of Stone is

@SonyInfinity That's why I hope that refund policies start getting introduced in online stores. Steam did it and developers weren't hurt from that, so they should introduce in the PS store too

@seanobi Pretty sure that the new Tomb Raider is selling Big Head Mode as a DLC, which is so heartbreaking considering it used to be a cheat in every game.

@Ps4all And it looks to be getting worse with Activision buying King. It's a shame that these practices are put in place, but there's always a chance that we can stop this!

@Grawlog You're pretty right - it's our job as consumers to find out what's worth our money, but console players are at a distinct advantage because the PS Store's games selection is entirely controlled by Sony - no Steam Greenlight or Early Access broken promises

@BAMozzy Games are selling better than ever, and it's all about the quality of the games that makes people buy them - I have a feeling that yearly franchises such as Assassin's Creed could benefit in quality and sales if they stopped making them regularly - just look at GTA V, it made $1 billion in 3 days! Also, about your Dark Below value comment - value is subjective, and if you felt like it was worth your money, then fair enough. I just felt that, on paper, the content that was added made that £20 seem a little steep.

@NomNom There are some F2P games like Warframe that are excellent in terms of value - I sunk about £10 into Loadout and hugely enjoyed my time in it.

@SavoirFaire Despite loving GTA V, I hate its Online model, it's hugely grindy and reliant on players repeating missions and races over and over again. The only DLC I'm really a fan of is good quality stuff - the kind that's made for Fallout, Mass Effect or The Witcher

@JoeBlogs not necessarily - most publishers have plenty of IPs, so they could take a risk on one and not harm their income too much. I honestly doubt that many publishers need all of this money, otherwise we'd be hearing huge losses in their quarterly reports

@mrobinson 91 1) I think that pre-ordering is a little risky, knowing that you never might know if the game is bad or not, but it's fine as long as you've researched it - I've pre-ordered Just Cause 3 after all! 2) I would sat yes, but then again more people are buying games than ever, so it's a yin-yang scenario really. 3) That's true, I don't think that developers have figured out the best way to monetize yet, but for now I think it's paid expansions that offer a lot AKA Hearts of Stone. 4) They almost always do!

@JLPick But don't you think that implementing microtransactions that turn the game into a grind would make you feel cheated out of your money? Because many games do that.

@MikLSP Exactly, and that's what I'm trying to get everyone to do with this article.

@LieutenantFatman Dead Space 3 is the one that did it for me. Mass Effect 3 annoyed me a little with its whole "earn multiplayer stuff in singleplayer" malarkey, but Dead Space 3 finally made me think that microtransactions were becoming a problem.

@Rudy_Manchego This is why I thought it was a good idea for Ubisoft to release smaller games like Valiant Hearts, Child of Light and Grow Home - if publishers keep the costs down on some games, they can blow the costs up on others, and we all know how well those 3 little games did!

@Frank90 I'm all up for DLC if it's good quality and good value - I've mentioned Hearts of Stone countless times, but plenty of other games have done it well too!

@CD456 Thanks!

Thanks to everybody who commented on this article and shared their views, it's nice to discuss things with the community

You are so right. I've always wanted to do something about the greedy publishers. My "idea" was to create a new organization that protects the consumer from the publisher's greed. I was thinking of naming it Video Game Entertainment Consumer Protection or something like that. Anyways, the main purpose of this organization would be to protect the consumer. This organization will govern how video games are released, and must follow these basic principles.

-Release dates are thrown out. The developer must work until the game is finished/polished. Publisher's may not decide release dates anymore.
-All Multiplayer-enabled games must have a beta test, for server stability.
-DLC must not be announced or sold before the game is finished.
-Indie games or games not being sold for money do not have to follow these principles.
-If any DLC content is being sold, it must not be more than $10, and can release no more than 4 DLC packs.
-Any game with a value of $60, may not include microtransactions.

• (SONY) Refunds should be given on pre-orders, if the consumer requests it, not just once.
• (MICROSOFT) Xbox Live membership prices will be slashed in half.

This was just an idea of mine. Some principles seem "outrageous" but what are we gonna do if the developers/publishers do not listen?

@nlovett218 While I don't agree with all of these policies, I do agree that there needs to be some sort of regulatory organization that keeps companies in the industry in check

@Anchorsam_9

I'm just trying to put something out there. There needs to be an organization like this.

@everyone
Here is how to have limits on console and game developers
Rules
1. Have DLC cost limited to 9.99
2.Do not have DLC ready upon release the limit is 60 days after game release
3.all physical DLC(skylanders etc.) Can not go over 14.99 also must be no shortage of the content.
3B.also physical DLC must be ready on game release if needed.
Digital games
1.All digital bought games via a game store is the same thing as a physical copy and I forever owned by the buyer.
2.digital games must go down in price when the physical game dose too.
3.if a quick sale is on the digital game but not the physical is allowed
4.all digital games must have a physical copy at a store via. a code or physical media.
Physical media
All stores that sale games must have all consoles currently in production and have a minimum of 5 games.
OTHER
All games digital or physical must be completed and bug free without mandatory online single player.
All game makers must make games for each console in each gen. and must be made on the weakest console and ported to a stronger console and the company must make 3 games per year for each console.
All console makers must make a home and a handheld console each generation.
If any company dose not follow these rules are subject to a 1-150 billion dollar a year fine.
Next no smartphone or tablet is not to have any games made for it.
No more arcades unless a console is in the market.
Sega must make a Dreamcast 2 and will sale 10 million units or more.

You can't stop it, you can only abide by it.

@andrew20 Just a couple things to address.

1: Sega making a dreamcast 2? Aside from the name, what would be its hook? Could they even afford the R&D for it right now? Would anyone really care at this point?

2: Does that multiplatform rule apply to the big 3? (4 if you include Sega and its dreamcast 2, and dreambobber portable to abide your other rule [fishing thing, casting, the bobber thing that sinks when a fish bites]) I can't imagine any of them would allow that so easily.

3: Does Microsoft have to make a portable version of Xbox, or can it get some legal loophole shenanigans by saying PC laptops are portables? How do iOS devices fit into this?

@crystalorbie so here is the light version
1.yes,that is paid by micro and EA and micro has to make a big mess up.
2.yes
3.yes they have to PC is it on console,and ios is not a console and no games can be made for it and any game on there has to be taken off.
4.we can remove stuff.

I think Zenimax and ArenaNet have it down. They offer F2P MMOs and keep the servers running with Cosmetic microtransactions. You don't need these too make your character look good but people still like to buy them. Doesn't hurt the game in anyway.

1)Final Fantasy 7 is still the 3rd most expensive to produce game the world has ever seen.

It didn't have Micro transactions.

It didn't have dlc.

It didn't have a monthly charge.

It still made a lot of money.

2) (and I say this every time when this discussion gets brought up) Piracy was frickin huge in the 80s and 90s. No one paid full price for games - wherever that was cracked tapes or discs, carts or plug ins. That's a huge reason games were expensive. They used to sell dodgy carts and discs in John Menzies!!

3) No one wants to spend more than £50 a game - and rightly so we've just been through a recession and parts of the world still are.

4) There are psychological gambling mechanics in games aimed at kids now a days

5) Gaming was less popular 20 years ago, which may explain why there was less none gamers taking advantage of the audience.

6) Make a game to fit my budget - not my budget to fit the game

7) Bejewled should take candy crush to court

8) Depending on the size of a cartridge 4megs cart cost roughly £3 to produce at the end of the snes and mega drive generation. So a 40meg (super street fighter 2 / donkey Kong country) cost £30 just for the cart. Sf2 turbo was 24meg - £18 just for the cart. No one ever talks about the tons of cheap games which were always under £15 - hang on, bonanza bros etc etc now can you understand?? By the time the n64 arrived the prices started to plummet - Nintendo at this time was taken to court for price fixing.

9) Production costs are compiled alongside Marketing costs - so we end up with £75 million game costs - when £50 mil was spent on marketing. This doesn't happen in the film industry.

10) Never buy a season pass

Naughty dog are my favourite playstation developer's but they are also guilty of spoiling multiplayer games with microtransactions it happened with the last of us, uncharted 2 and 3 with overpowered weapons and map packs that split the community smh I wonder if it will ever end while there is always someone with more money and time then sense paying for these things

yes the industry is getting greedy , and we can do nothing about it , is just the evolution of tech. its a normal path.
and its not coz the game cost lots of money or the devs need money to feed their family , NO ... the only reason is that the Publishers is getting greedy and needs more money and sure that people are willing to pay. and people will never stop paying to purchase cool stuff that aren't in the game they bought.

and if the movie industry had the same opportunity they would do the same , release the movie , and then you can download the end for a cost

simple is that ...

Great article. I agree. But to add to the greed,can we talk about releasing games that are well broken. Say you preorder a game it comes in,you start playing and random charecters in the game have no face,or run in place, whatever the problem or problems is or are aint what im talking about what Im trying to talk about is game companys have got to know the game has issues they have testers right? Maybe they need to drug check them for the amount and variety of glitches like skyrim ps3 when it came horrible so many more games but what do we do about it? They have our money we aint getting it back