View from the Road: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

[Klepa]

Ah, a wonderful read, and even better, entirely true.
I've never understood why people look down on microtransactions the way they do. I mean, the people making the games have got to eat too, right?

For me, it's because a lot of games with microtransactions have been extremely unfair to the people who don't pay.

I don't mind the business model, it's just that oftentimes the devs make it so that you can pretty much just pay to win. With a few euros, you buy yourself a big sword that's twice as powerful than anything else in the known universe. Or spend a few quid to buy potions that give you 20% more health.

Allods online has a system where you had to spend money to remove the massive debuff you get, every time you died. No cash? No problem, just literally wait for a full hour, with a completely debuffed and useless character. The game also sports a ridiculously small inventory bag, and the only way to get a somewhat bearable bag, was to take out the wallet. Of course the devs need money, but when the game is littered with massive inconveniences that you can only get rid of by paying, it's easy to feel extremely swindled.

Not to completely bash the idea, I think DDO's system is really good. It's not a PvP game, so it's not competitive. You pay money to buy yourself new dungeons and new adventures. Kind of like really small expansions, or DLC's. It's a good system because I get more game time with my money. I get new adventures, I get to experience more fun. If I choose not to pay, or pay only a little, I'm still just as happy, only that the enjoyment is more short lived, because I'll run out of content.

To make a crappy analogy:
Subscription based games are like a buying a box of chocolate.
Games like Allods, is like an empty box, and I have to pay for the chocolate.
Games like DDO, is like half a box of chocolate, and I have to pay if I want more.

To sum up my feelings, I think microtransactions should be something that I want to pay, not something that I need to pay. If they'd work like that, I wouldn't have a problem. But most microtransaction games I've played, pretty much force me to pay money to even get the slightest bit of enjoyment out of it.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

I have my steam open directly to library page. Never saw a single ad ever on steam.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

So, "Update News" is ads...? And ads make money...?

OMG! NO WAY!

 

[GoodApprentice]

A transaction is an agreement between purchaser and seller in which an asset is exchanged for payment. In the world of advertising, the target audience is NEVER considered a part of the transaction but is considered a favourable byproduct of that transaction.

Also, when someone logs onto Steam and sees some advertising, sure they are spending some of their time looking at the advertisements, but their time is not an exchangeable commodity. Steam isn't getting that time from you to spend on game development (obviously). No transaction of any type is occurring. Sure, it might lead to other, separate transactions but in no way are they technically linked to the original transaction between purchaser and supplier.

Sure there is no such thing as a free lunch, but you have to realize that it's a lunch between purchaser and seller and that Steam users haven't even been invited.

 

[John Funk]

Very nice.

As I saw the number, I was suddenly curious whether just subscriptions maintained the $136,986 per day. After the number crunching... Blizzard gets $5,500,000 a day, so they have $5363131 per day. Of course, with 11 million players...

Sorry, but I doubt your numbers are accurate here. You need to keep in mind that out of the 11.5 million players, roughly 5 million come from Asia and they don't use a subscription model like elsewhere. Instead, they pay per hour of play, so Asian players are not a reliable source of income. Plus, as Funk mentioned in his article, the figure 136,986 is only for actualy keeping the servers running. There is a whole slew of other expenses that need to be considered.

I am not saying Blizzard isn't making a fair bit of money with WoW. But I think people tend to oversimplify and exaggerate how much money they make and also ignore how much it costs to maintain an MMO of such a magnitude as WoW.

I think I remember reading that even though it's a 50/50 West/Asia balance in the playerbase, Asia is only 5-10% of Blizzard's revenue when you factor in currency exchanges, the cut that the operators take, and different payment methods.

But don't quote me on that.

 

[Citrus]

Well yeah, obviously you're being exposed to advertisements, but you'd be hard-pressed to call that a micro-transaction.

The TF2 updates are a free lunch. It's just that the cardboard container holding your fries has an advertisement on it. Glancing at the advertisement while you eat your fries doesn't make them any less free.

 

[esin]

"There's a psychological factor at play that makes people more willing to click through a few ads rather than feel like they're paying for content, even though they're really paying either way - whether it's for the DLC or for the game that they'll eventually buy when they see an ad saying "hey, it's 30% off!"

I think people are overlooking the huge difference that if I pay a $15 subscription for Wow, I get Nothing except the privilege of continuing to play Wow. If I pay for a few in game items, I get a few dinky addons to a game.

If I buy a game I saw on sale in Steam from playing TF2, I get a Whole new game, likely at a discounted price and I get to continue playing TF2 (whether I buy anything or not, of course).

 

[copycatalyst]

I don't think Valve sees keeping people coming back to Steam to view adverts as their primary purpose for updating TF2. Pre-Steam, with the WON loading screens, the only ads you'd see would be from the server itself, not connected with Valve in most cases. Back then, Valve still provided free updates (HL1 deathmatch, TFC, etc) in order to foster a community.

I'm not suggesting that they aren't concerned with making money. (Every good company should be concerned with making money). They're just taking a long view: provide free stuff now, gain the support of fans who will buy your stuff later.

That people are exposed to ads on Steam is just gravy.

 

[Shjade]

Well yeah, obviously you're being exposed to advertisements, but you'd be hard-pressed to call that a micro-transaction.

The TF2 updates are a free lunch. It's just that the cardboard container holding your fries has an advertisement on it. Glancing at the advertisement while you eat your fries doesn't make them any less free.

I think you missed the part of the explanation that notes even a lunch you're eating without paying isn't free due to still requiring time and effort to create. Even without the advertising element they're not free; you just aren't the one paying for them at the moment.

 

[CoverYourHead]

I think it's a good thing. I'd love to be able to have more free games I just had to glance at an add in the start-up browser to pay for. Totally worth it in my opinion.

 

[ScarletScapegrace]

As soon as I saw the title of the article, I had an idea that Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress would somehow be involved. You definitely get points in my book for bringing the book up.

I was a little curious about how Valve would keep pumping out more TF2 updates due to the "buy once, play always" nature of the game, but the presence of Steam explains a lot.

Though now thinking on it, I remember that when I bought TF2 at $10 retail, the price went up to $20 the very next week. So even though it may seem like the old-timer players aren't paying much for the updates, some of it is coming out of new players' pocket.

 

[Citrus]

Well yeah, obviously you're being exposed to advertisements, but you'd be hard-pressed to call that a micro-transaction.

The TF2 updates are a free lunch. It's just that the cardboard container holding your fries has an advertisement on it. Glancing at the advertisement while you eat your fries doesn't make them any less free.

I think you missed the part of the explanation that notes even a lunch you're eating without paying isn't free due to still requiring time and effort to create. Even without the advertising element they're not free; you just aren't the one paying for them at the moment.

No, I didn't miss anything. I thought it went without saying that somebody is paying for the lunch, but it's free for me. That was my point.

 

[scarab7]

My Econ teacher used the same "free lunch" model to explain the wave of free and premium popularity in sales. I'd wish this article went more in depth with specific success and failures of the whole "free" concept.

 

[Enigmers]

I don't see ads when I fire up TF2, it just says "Preparing to launch TF2..." and then I see the usual Valve intro, then the main menu. Where do the ads come in? I do continue to buy those ridiculously great game deals on Steam, but I do all my instant messaging through Steam and most of my games come from Steam anyway, regardless of whether or not I happened to play TF2 that way.

 

[nmaster64]

I disagree entirely. In practice, they work out to being the exact same thing. It's how Valve funds development of TF2.

I agree with your article John, although concerning semantics I don't equate advertisement-based models with micotransaction-based ones. I think they are distinctly different, even if they are in some ways are functionally similar. I don't think you should quite use them interchangeably though.

 

[Loonerinoes]

A philosophy worth considering when perusing any multiplayer service, but as of right now it only applies to multiplayer-based games (like all the ones mentioned in your article). Piracy says otherwise when it comes to singleplayer still.

 

[Yokai]

I only have a problem with microtransactions when they imbalance the game. EA's Battlefield Heroes is and example of how not to use microtransactions: by allowing players to buy more powerful weapons than those in the free game, thus making it incredibly hard for the free players to win. Or even have fun, when getting repeatedly spawn camped from a mile away by some bloke who shelled out the extra $2.50 for a fancy rifle and is now, by default, better than everyone else.

Also, I don't expect to ever wake up in horror realizing that Valve's "free" DLC is costing someone money. We win (new weapons, maps, game modes), Valve wins (CASH), the advertisers think they win (more [potential] buyers). It works for everyone, and makes sense.

 

[Hashime]

I like the ads on steam, they are unobtrusive and relevant, at least for now. Like one of the previous posters I picked up KOTOR for $2 after seeing the ad, and got Dirt 2 and 4 other games for $17.50. I would have otherwise picked up the game full price at gamestop.

 

[ionveau]

Very nice.

As I saw the number, I was suddenly curious whether just subscriptions maintained the $136,986 per day. After the number crunching... Blizzard gets $5,500,000 a day, so they have $5363131 per day. Of course, with 11 million players...

Sorry, but I doubt your numbers are accurate here. You need to keep in mind that out of the 11.5 million players, roughly 5 million come from Asia and they don't use a subscription model like elsewhere. Instead, they pay per hour of play, so Asian players are not a reliable source of income. Plus, as Funk mentioned in his article, the figure 136,986 is only for actualy keeping the servers running. There is a whole slew of other expenses that need to be considered.

I am not saying Blizzard isn't making a fair bit of money with WoW. But I think people tend to oversimplify and exaggerate how much money they make and also ignore how much it costs to maintain an MMO of such a magnitude as WoW.

You see an MMO like WoW is just a golden cow that almost every developer has tried to copy, Yes keeping the game running costs a lot of money but look at it like this, WoW in my opinion has the largest amount of people under its control, the mount that they sell for $25(thats like 2 copys of TF2) on the first day of sales gotten them 2million, And the fact is they gain an annual profit of 1.7 billion,

I dont understand why people attempt to make me think the WoW is losing money, no its not.
if anything it needs to cut its subscription down to $5 in order to be making a profit that is not so much higher then all other MMOs out there.

Now going back to the "problem" of TF2 having ADs, yes those are ads but at lest they show humbleness unlike WoW that charges its players $60 every time they add 5 maps

 

[UkibyTheMaid]

I don't mind the micro-transactions. I never took part of them but only because most games I play don't have those.

But it's kinda sad when 'the poor' get stomped 'by the rich' because the free weapons/magic/whatever is crap compared to that all that shiny, 5 bucks add-ons. It's totally unfair and, like it was said before, it takes the fun away from the game.

And aren't games about having fun instead of sseing who has more 'bling'???