Take-Two CEO Says the Company is Under-Monetizing its Users

[Zulnam]

This made me barf in my mouth a little. By far the scummiest thing i've read all year about gaming.

Undermonetizing. Wow. Go f**k yourself.

 

[TilMorrow]

Did anyone even read the post?

But Zelnick also acknowledged that you can go too far in charging players for every last bit of content. "You can't give stuff away for free in perpetuity; there's no business model in that," Zelnick said. "But we're not trying to optimize the monetization of everything we do to the nth degree. My concern is, if you do that, the consumer knows. They might not even know that they know, but they feel it."

"We're not going to grab the last nickel," he said.

He is pretty much justifying his company's decision to not squeeze every last nickel from their customers even though from a industry perspective there is "money on the table".

Except

"We are convinced that we are probably from an industry view undermonetizing on a per-user basis. There is wood to chop because I think we can do more, and we can do more without interfering with our strategy of being the most creative and our ethical approach, which is delighting consumers."

Shows that he does want their games to get at more of the money on the table whilst bamboozling their consumers into thinking it's all part of the creative visions and don't worry they'll enjoy it. Just because he doesn't want your last nickel doesn't mean they won't try to price up for the rest.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Considering they milked Evolve, and are stil milking the dying Battleborn community, I'm not suprised. I'm pretty pisses that these sort of practises are common now, however, and fear what they'll pull off with Borderlands 3.

 

[COMaestro]

Shows that he does want their games to get at more of the money on the table whilst bamboozling their consumers into thinking it's all part of the creative visions and don't worry they'll enjoy it. Just because he doesn't want your last nickel doesn't mean they won't try to price up for the rest.

Oh, he wants your last nickel, he's just smart enough to realize it's a bad idea to say so.

 

[TilMorrow]

Shows that he does want their games to get at more of the money on the table whilst bamboozling their consumers into thinking it's all part of the creative visions and don't worry they'll enjoy it. Just because he doesn't want your last nickel doesn't mean they won't try to price up for the rest.

Oh, he wants your last nickel, he's just smart enough to realize it's a bad idea to say so.

Spoiler: Dear God they're getting smarter

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

As long as they keep that crap in the multiplayer, I don't give a fig.

 

[Saelune]

Did anyone even read the post?

But Zelnick also acknowledged that you can go too far in charging players for every last bit of content. "You can't give stuff away for free in perpetuity; there's no business model in that," Zelnick said. "But we're not trying to optimize the monetization of everything we do to the nth degree. My concern is, if you do that, the consumer knows. They might not even know that they know, but they feel it."

"We're not going to grab the last nickel," he said.

He is pretty much justifying his company's decision to not squeeze every last nickel from their customers even though from a industry perspective there is "money on the table".

Micro transactions are bad by any amount. Ofcourse he says hes not going to be evil about it, but thats a blatant lie. If he did not want to be evil, he would not put in microtransactions at all. I mean, he also says essentially "We arent getting enough money out of people".

Zelnick said [https://www.gamespot.com/articles/rockstars-parent-company-talks-microtransactions-v/1100-6450459/] that Take-Two wasn't maximizing its microtranaction business. "We are convinced that we are probably from an industry view undermonetizing on a per-user basis. There is wood to chop because I think we can do more, and we can do more without interfering with our strategy of being the most creative and our ethical approach, which is delighting consumers."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, with the ever increasing costs of game development, it's either micro-transactions or paying more upfront.

(I mean, they could spend less on development, but then what will the PCMR spend their money on?)

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well, with the ever increasing costs of game development, it's either micro-transactions or paying more upfront.

(I mean, they could spend less on development, but then what will the PCMR spend their money on?)

I would rather they find more cost effective methods of developing games rather than gouging me.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, with the ever increasing costs of game development, it's either micro-transactions or paying more upfront.

(I mean, they could spend less on development, but then what will the PCMR spend their money on?)

I would rather they find more cost effective methods of developing games rather than gouging me.

I'm just saying, accounting for inflation, SNES games were in the $80-$90 range on the low end.

*shrug* Increased sales can only count for so much at a static price point.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well, with the ever increasing costs of game development, it's either micro-transactions or paying more upfront.

(I mean, they could spend less on development, but then what will the PCMR spend their money on?)

I would rather they find more cost effective methods of developing games rather than gouging me.

I'm just saying, accounting for inflation, SNES games were in the $80-$90 range on the low end.

*shrug* Increased sales can only count for so much at a static price point.

Really? Because that's a price I refuse to pay. Fuck inflation!

 

[sXeth]

Well I had to look up what Take Two actually publishes.

That I've played in any recent memory;
GTAV/O (Awful gameplay, awful writing, microtransactions out the *** in the online thing, which took them years to release promised content for and become even vaguely intriguing (still garbage gameplay though), Borderlands (Awful gameplay and horrible writing again), and Xcom (the first one was alright, the shooter thing was terrible, and when I played 2, it was a glitchy broken mess that I ended up refunding after the third game breaking bug inside the first 2 hours).

And the sports games I suppose. Which are just a yearly roster update with no innovation unless you skip a decade or so). And more recently have been their own ludicrous DLC dispensers.

 

[Kurt91]

Eh. I only have two conditions as far as microtransactions go.

1: Keep the advertising in the store. I already paid for the game, I don't want to see advertisements on all of the loading screens, leaderboards, and gear selection about how I should be paying for more shit.

2: Make sure that without seeing the advertisements anywhere, I can walk away from the base game feeling as though I had finished playing a complete game. Don't make me feel that I paid full price for a sub-par experience because I didn't want to pay extra for what should have been there to begin with.

Oh, you added more plot behind a DLC section of the game? Did I get a fulfilling story with the base game and it didn't feel like I'm being asked to pay extra for the final segment of the game? Okay, then I'm fine with that.

You decided to make a huge selection of special equipment that's only available by paying extra money? Do the base game's equipment fulfill their purpose? If yes, and I can comfortably play with the base gear, then feel free to do what you please. If no, and I'm essentially trying to fight a Lv 75 boss with Lv 15 weapons and armor, then fuck off.

Thing is, I usually play single-player games. I'm not very big on multiplayer stuff. If you want to absolutely piss me off, though, make me feel as though the single-player experience on the base-game is shit and I need to buy extras like EXP boosters and other MMO-style shit just to play the game that I already paid for. Cosmetics is fine. Multiplayer gear is fine with me, I don't mess with it. Just keep things balanced for decency's sake. Just leave the ads out of the single player game, and away from any screens I might go through to get to said single player game, and I will continue to give you my money. Don't force me to buy DLC, I will do it if I enjoyed the base game and wanted more.

 

[josemlopes]

Did anyone even read the post?

But Zelnick also acknowledged that you can go too far in charging players for every last bit of content. "You can't give stuff away for free in perpetuity; there's no business model in that," Zelnick said. "But we're not trying to optimize the monetization of everything we do to the nth degree. My concern is, if you do that, the consumer knows. They might not even know that they know, but they feel it."

"We're not going to grab the last nickel," he said.

He is pretty much justifying his company's decision to not squeeze every last nickel from their customers even though from a industry perspective there is "money on the table".

This.

Microtransactions were shit, and honestly the current solution of having free dlc/paid cosmetics that is now very popular is a good one for me. Basicly the people that pay for those cosmetics (because they have more money available to spend in such rather "useless" content) are basicly paying for the cost of making the other dlc free for everyone.

If there is an even better way of making microtransactions then go ahead and try.
And the argument that the free dlc should have been there from the start isnt even true in most cases with these games since the stuff that they are adding is stuff that the game already had in good amount (with GTA is weapons, clothes and cars). One thing is the shit starting state of a game like Evolve, the other is the much more already fleshed out games like GTA V or Rainbow Six Siege

 

[Saelune]

Well, with the ever increasing costs of game development, it's either micro-transactions or paying more upfront.

(I mean, they could spend less on development, but then what will the PCMR spend their money on?)

I would rather they find more cost effective methods of developing games rather than gouging me.

I'm just saying, accounting for inflation, SNES games were in the $80-$90 range on the low end.

*shrug* Increased sales can only count for so much at a static price point.

Really? Because that's a price I refuse to pay. Fuck inflation!

Accounting for inflation I feel is very misleading though, cause as I understand it, it just means our money used to be "worth more" back then. Everything will be more expensive if you "account for inflation". It is not the fault of prices then but the worth of our money.

 

[FalloutJack]

Any monetization is too much monetization, hands down.

 

[MonsterCrit]

LOl. Simply lol. Classic human nature. They see how much other people are making and suddebnl;y want it.

 

[shrekfan246]

"Hey folks, did you forget for half a second that we consider you all to be walking wallets? Well, let us remind you!"

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, with the ever increasing costs of game development, it's either micro-transactions or paying more upfront.

(I mean, they could spend less on development, but then what will the PCMR spend their money on?)

I would rather they find more cost effective methods of developing games rather than gouging me.

I'm just saying, accounting for inflation, SNES games were in the $80-$90 range on the low end.

*shrug* Increased sales can only count for so much at a static price point.

Really? Because that's a price I refuse to pay. Fuck inflation!

Accounting for inflation I feel is very misleading though, cause as I understand it, it just means our money used to be "worth more" back then. Everything will be more expensive if you "account for inflation". It is not the fault of prices then but the worth of our money.

I fail to see the tangible difference. Is Chrono Trigger, a game that can be played on your phone, an $80 game? Because that's how much it cost before inflation. Square probably spent much more on FF 15 than it did on FF 6 even accounting for inflation. 6 certainly took only a tenth of the time to develop, at any rate. But 6 cost more, before inflation.

 

[deadish]

Did anyone even read the post?

But Zelnick also acknowledged that you can go too far in charging players for every last bit of content. "You can't give stuff away for free in perpetuity; there's no business model in that," Zelnick said. "But we're not trying to optimize the monetization of everything we do to the nth degree. My concern is, if you do that, the consumer knows. They might not even know that they know, but they feel it."

"We're not going to grab the last nickel," he said.

He is pretty much justifying his company's decision to not squeeze every last nickel from their customers even though from a industry perspective there is "money on the table".

Except

"We are convinced that we are probably from an industry view undermonetizing on a per-user basis. There is wood to chop because I think we can do more, and we can do more without interfering with our strategy of being the most creative and our ethical approach, which is delighting consumers."

Shows that he does want their games to get at more of the money on the table whilst bamboozling their consumers into thinking it's all part of the creative visions and don't worry they'll enjoy it. Just because he doesn't want your last nickel doesn't mean they won't try to price up for the rest.

Dude. That's his job. Take-Two is a for-profit corporation with shareholders, not a charity.

ALL corporations charge what the market will bear. They aren't your friends, they are people you do business with.

He is suppose to maximize profit as it's CEO but he is aware that if he overdoes it it will result in dissatisfaction among the company's customer base and that is bad for business in the long run.