By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS CFO Tim Stuart defends throwing MTX into $70 games.

Dead or Alive 6 has like $2500 worth of DLC. Mostly cosmetic crap



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network

very pro consumer.



@Cerebralbore101 

The only part of your post id like you to answer.

"All signs indicate that Halo Infinite is going full on GaaS mode though, that is where the idea that MS wants MTX in all of their games."

Where has MS said the full Halo Experience and all their games going forward are going to be GaaS games full with "needed" micro-transactions?.

A better way to put it for you. If say Horizon 2 launched and it was coming with 2 modes separate btw from each other You get the full single player experience. But then you can also download a free2play online mode that clearly is going to have cosmetic items for sale to keep up the costs for this free2play portion that people can play for nothing and in no way effects the single player portion that people who like single player games can buy. How does that effect you?.

Can you not see the difference here or is your bias clouding your judgment?.



sales2099 said:

Games you beat once and never touch again and games with a competitive multiplayer with persistent free content drops are not comparable. Thread OP doesn’t understand this. 

Nope. I understand that perfectly. Games you beat once, and never touch again have unique level design, enemies, puzzles, quests, gameplay, story content, dialogue, etc. They offer up quality over quantity. They offer unique experiences that are memorable. Multiplayer games are often just hundreds of hours of the same old same old. And to make matters worse many of them are just shooters, a genre which has gotten horribly stale over the last ten years. You simply can't compare a game like BotW, GoW, Spider-Man, Super Mario Odyssey, etc. to another shoot-game, with a multiplayer mode. If I play Odyssey, I'm taking over a T-Rex, or becoming a gliding lizard, or something else crazy and new, and interesting and fun. If I play one of a bazillion shoot-games, I'm just doing the same old boring gameplay I've done in a bazillion other shoot-games.

And like I said before, multiplayer games don't take very much effort to make. Let's take Halo or Halo 2 for example. Two games I know we've both played. How many assets do you think are in the main campaign of Halo? Now how many of those assets made it into multiplayer? How about for Halo 2? An asset can be a sound, 3D model, animation, or texture. Now let's ask ourselves how much level design was put into Halo's single player campaign. Same for Halo 2. How many square feet does the entirety of Halo's single player campaign consist of? How about Halo 2? Now, how about coding? Is there AI in Halo's multiplayer modes, not including co-op? How about Halo 2? Are there carefully coded scenarios in Halo or Halo 2's multiplayer mode, designed to challenge the player? Anybody without bias is going to answer that the campaign modes of both games have vastly more assets, programming, and level design than the multiplayer modes.

Now remember that Halo 1, and 2 both have 11 hour long single player campaigns. That remains pretty true for Halo 3, 4, 5, and Reach as well. Now keep in mind that single player games like GoW, or Spider-Man, or GoT are easily twice that length. If you're a completionist those games can balloon to well over 50 hours of single player content. Now keep in mind that we've already established that single player content often takes way more assets than multiplayer content. The level of effort that's put into a multiplayer shoot-game like CoD, Halo, or Gears, is insignificant compared to the level of effort that goes into many single player games. 

So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

P.S. The Splatoon series has managed to have free content updates for years without resorting to MTX. How can Nintendo afford that? Because that sort of free content takes far less effort than you think.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Around the Network

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the issue with cosmetic microtransactions in a multiplayer game, as long as they're not randomized (aka lootboxes). Multiplayer games require ongoing support from the developers for at least a year after release usually, sometimes years plural. The devs/publishers have to pay for that post-release content development somehow, you can't just expect a publisher who cares about their bottom line to support a multiplayer game with all free DLC for years after release, that is years of paying a probably 40+ person DLC development team $70k+ per year per person to develop that DLC. Multiplayer games used to have paid map packs and such, but the industry has moved away from those to free maps because they realized that paid map packs split the playerbase too much and made it harder for those who owned the maps to find matches on those new paid maps. Instead, multiplayer developers now support the development of free maps and modes with paid cosmetics, which are almost always also available through in-game means. That is fine with me and most multiplayer gamers.

So yeah, I just don't see the issue with Microsoft putting cosmetic microtransactions into Halo Infinite, a game which they are planning to support with free maps and modes for the entire 9th generation (we're talking probably 6 years of DLC support). 343 even already confirmed that all cosmetics will also be available to earn in-game. I could understand the complaints if MS were planning to bring back randomized lootboxes like they had in Halo 5, but they already confirmed that lootboxes are dead. I could also understand the complaints if MS was planning to put microtransactions into a singleplayer game, but I've seen no evidence that they plan to do that. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 17 November 2020

zero129 said:

@Cerebralbore101 

The only part of your post id like you to answer.

"All signs indicate that Halo Infinite is going full on GaaS mode though, that is where the idea that MS wants MTX in all of their games."

Where has MS said the full Halo Experience and all their games going forward are going to be GaaS games full with "needed" micro-transactions?.

A better way to put it for you. If say Horizon 2 launched and it was coming with 2 modes separate btw from each other You get the full single player experience. But then you can also download a free2play online mode that clearly is going to have cosmetic items for sale to keep up the costs for this free2play portion that people can play for nothing and in no way effects the single player portion that people who like single player games can buy. How does that effect you?.

Can you not see the difference here or is your bias clouding your judgment?.

You're assuming a free2play multiplayer mode that was built off the assets of the single player game would cost a significant amount of money to make. It doesn't. Your theoretical HZD2 multiplayer mode could be sold for $15 as a stand alone purchase, no MTX involved, and still make a ton of money.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

shikamaru317 said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the issue with cosmetic microtransactions in a multiplayer game, as long as they're not randomized (aka lootboxes). Multiplayer games require ongoing support from the developers for at least a year after release usually, sometimes years plural. The devs/publishers have to pay for that post-release content development somehow, you can't just expect a publisher who cares about their bottom line to support a multiplayer game with all free DLC for years after release, that is years of paying a probably 40+ person DLC development team $70k+ per year per person to develop that DLC. Multiplayer games used to have paid map packs and such, but the industry has moved away from those to free maps because they realized that paid map packs split the playerbase too much and made it harder for those who owned the maps to find matches on those new paid maps. Instead, multiplayer developers now support the development of free maps and modes with paid cosmetics, which are almost always also available through in-game means. That is fine with me and most multiplayer gamers.

So yeah, I just don't see the issue with Microsoft putting cosmetic microtransactions into Halo Infinite, a game which they are planning to support with free maps and modes for the entire 9th generation (we're talking probably 6 years of DLC support). 343 even already confirmed that all cosmetics will also be available to earn in-game.

Your 40 man dev team would cost 2.8 million. If the game sells 5 million copies and just 6% of the playerbase (300,000 people) spend just $10 per year then they've recouped their losses + a $200,000 profit. If 12% of the playerbase spends $10 a year they've more than doubled their investment. Most businesses are golden if they make $1.10 in revenue for every $1 they spend. A profit margin of 200% or more is obscene, and evidence that somebody is being taken for a ride.

Edit: Also a 40 man dev team sounds like too big of a staff to me. I bet it could be done with as little as 10-20 people on staff. And you wouldn't even need veteran game devs making 70K+ a year. Just new hires.

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 18 November 2020

The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the issue with cosmetic microtransactions in a multiplayer game, as long as they're not randomized (aka lootboxes). Multiplayer games require ongoing support from the developers for at least a year after release usually, sometimes years plural. The devs/publishers have to pay for that post-release content development somehow, you can't just expect a publisher who cares about their bottom line to support a multiplayer game with all free DLC for years after release, that is years of paying a probably 40+ person DLC development team $70k+ per year per person to develop that DLC. Multiplayer games used to have paid map packs and such, but the industry has moved away from those to free maps because they realized that paid map packs split the playerbase too much and made it harder for those who owned the maps to find matches on those new paid maps. Instead, multiplayer developers now support the development of free maps and modes with paid cosmetics, which are almost always also available through in-game means. That is fine with me and most multiplayer gamers.

So yeah, I just don't see the issue with Microsoft putting cosmetic microtransactions into Halo Infinite, a game which they are planning to support with free maps and modes for the entire 9th generation (we're talking probably 6 years of DLC support). 343 even already confirmed that all cosmetics will also be available to earn in-game.

Your 40 man dev team would cost 2.8 million. If the game sells 5 million copies and just 6% of the playerbase (300,000 people) spend just $10 per year then they've recouped their losses + a $200,000 profit. If 12% of the playerbase spends $10 a year they've more than doubled their investment. Most businesses are golden if they make $1.10 in revenue for every $1 they spend. A profit margin of 200% or more is obscene, and evidence that somebody is being taken for a ride.

That is $2.8m per year to pay for the development of that all free multiplayer DLC in that hypothetical scenario. But for Halo it would be alot more. 343 Industries has nearly 600 devs, I would assume there will be at least 150 people on Halo Infinite's post-release multiplayer support team, and MS has already said that they want to support Infinite the entire generation with both singleplayer and multiplayer DLC. While the singleplayer expansions will presumably cost money, all of the maps, modes, and weapons that will be released for Halo Infinite's multiplayer will be free. So 150 people making an average of probably $80,000 per year (343 Industries is in a high cost of living area so I assume their average pay is higher than most other AAA game studios), with probably 6 years of support. That is $12m per year x 6 years = $72m. You can't just expect MS to be willing to spend $72m on 6 years of free DLC support for Halo Infinite's multiplayer, it's unreasonable, even if the game will make over $1b in revenue from sales of the game. They already have a rumored budget of $200m+ for the past 5 years they've spent working on the game with 500+ people.

This is the real world we live in, gaming is a business for AAA game publishers like Microsoft; they're not in the business to earn the goodwill of gamers, they are in the business to earn as much money as possible so that Satya Nadella and the other MS executives can be filthy rich, live in mansions, bathe in champagne, and fly in private jets, the American dream baby! xD

The good news is, Halo Infinite microtransactions are confirmed to be cosmetic only, non randomized, and earnable in-game. I can't really complain about that, I would only complain if they were randomized, it sucks to want a certain cosmetic and have to rely on gambling to get that cosmetic. Looking at you Overwatch!

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 18 November 2020

shikamaru317 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the issue with cosmetic microtransactions in a multiplayer game, as long as they're not randomized (aka lootboxes). Multiplayer games require ongoing support from the developers for at least a year after release usually, sometimes years plural. The devs/publishers have to pay for that post-release content development somehow, you can't just expect a publisher who cares about their bottom line to support a multiplayer game with all free DLC for years after release, that is years of paying a probably 40+ person DLC development team $70k+ per year per person to develop that DLC. Multiplayer games used to have paid map packs and such, but the industry has moved away from those to free maps because they realized that paid map packs split the playerbase too much and made it harder for those who owned the maps to find matches on those new paid maps. Instead, multiplayer developers now support the development of free maps and modes with paid cosmetics, which are almost always also available through in-game means. That is fine with me and most multiplayer gamers.

So yeah, I just don't see the issue with Microsoft putting cosmetic microtransactions into Halo Infinite, a game which they are planning to support with free maps and modes for the entire 9th generation (we're talking probably 6 years of DLC support). 343 even already confirmed that all cosmetics will also be available to earn in-game.

Your 40 man dev team would cost 2.8 million. If the game sells 5 million copies and just 6% of the playerbase (300,000 people) spend just $10 per year then they've recouped their losses + a $200,000 profit. If 12% of the playerbase spends $10 a year they've more than doubled their investment. Most businesses are golden if they make $1.10 in revenue for every $1 they spend. A profit margin of 200% or more is obscene, and evidence that somebody is being taken for a ride.

That is $2.8m per year to pay for the development of that all free multiplayer DLC in that hypothetical scenario. But for Halo it would be alot more. 343 Industries has nearly 600 devs, I would assume there will be at least 150 people on Halo Infinite's post-release multiplayer support team, and MS has already said that they want to support Infinite the entire generation with both singleplayer and multiplayer DLC. While the singleplayer expansions will presumably cost money, all of the maps, modes, and weapons that will be released for Halo Infinite's multiplayer will be free. So 150 people making an average of probably $80,000 per year (343 Industries is in a high cost of living area so I assume their average pay is higher than most other AAA game studios), with probably 6 years of support. That is $12m per year x 6 years = $72m. You can't just expect MS to be willing to spend $72m on 6 years of free DLC support for Halo Infinite's multiplayer, it's unreasonable, even if the game will make over $1b in profit from sales of the game. They already have a rumored budget of $200m+ for the past 5 years they've spent working on the game with 500+ people.

This is the real world we live in, gaming is a business for AAA game publishers like Microsoft; they're not in the business to earn the goodwill of gamers, they are in the business to earn as much money as possible so that Satya Nadella and the other MS executives can be filthy rich, live in mansions, bathe in champagne, and fly in private jets, the American dream baby xD

The good news is, Halo Infinite microtransactions are confirmed to be cosmetic only, non randomized, and earnable in-game. I can't really complain about that, I would only complain if they were randomized, it sucks to want a certain cosmetic and have to rely on gambling to get that cosmetic. 

What? I can't expect a company to spend 7.2% of it's total sales profits on free DLC and updates? 72 million is 7.2% of a billion. That's like a company making $10 in profits from a sale of an item, and then giving their customer a 72 cent plastic gift.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true.