Microtransactions: Selling in-game content for real money

[ArcherofAiur]

Sorry about the question ambiguity. Yes means approve, no means disapprove. Id change it if I could.

Hey, whaddya know, Blizzard fans putting the most negative spin possible on something. Shocking.

Think about $5 bonus campaigns. Think about new single player units. Think about incentives for map makers to hire teams and create high-quality products.

Heres the funny thing about micro-transactions, they allow a minority of people with high money and/or interest to drive up the price and concordantly down the required quality of the service/product. To a certain extent this is just good free market economics. However, when taken to a certain level companies can make high profits from shipping out low quality products *cough EA cough*. It depends on what quality-to-price ratio maximizes profit.

Now Blizzard has so far shown itself immune from Invisible Hand influences. This is most probably because of an emphasis on long term brandname integrity and subsequent long term profit. But one does have to wonder whether in-game content like "pets" is a product aimed at high-quality-to-price, long term profit or if it is a product designed for low-quality-to-price, short term profit.

[spychi]

Heres the funny thing about micro-transactions, they allow a minority of people with high money and/or interest to drive up the price and concordantly down the required quality of the service/product. To a certain extent this is just good free market economics. However, when taken to a certain level companies can make high profits from shipping out low quality products *cough EA cough*. It depends on what quality-to-price ratio maximizes profit.

.

this is why if something will be crappy and expensive, people won't buy it, it's that simple
the thing is that they allowed people who will spend a week or two or even more time on custom maps to create great campaigns/mods/UMS maps and they will earn some for their time, Blizzard by doing that not only will give the opportunity to make money for map makers, it will bring the quality that sometimes lacks in the SC1 (if it comes to some UMS maps). I love UMS maps and I will buy them if needed, also it's not said that if someone who makes maps will demand from people money, if a map maker feels that it should be for free, it will be for free, if he will want some ammount of money for it and people will like it.
I doubt that long campaigns will cost more than from max 5$, just look at iPod applications, iTunes is a great thing for modders of apple apps same thing will happen for modders at Battle.net 2.0

BTW sorry but EA nowadays is even better than Activision if it comes to good quality/price games so...bah Modern Warfare 2, shitty game, overpriced, with no-free DLC even for PC's, 5-6 hour singleplayer, no dedicated servers, no mods for that game will be like the most shitty game ever

[newcomplex]

Sorry about the question ambiguity. Yes means approve, no means disapprove. Id change it if I could.





Heres the funny thing about micro-transactions, they allow a minority of people with high money and/or interest to drive up the price and concordantly down the required quality of the service/product. To a certain extent this is just good free market economics. However, when taken to a certain level companies can make high profits from shipping out low quality products *cough EA cough*. It depends on what quality-to-price ratio maximizes profit.

Now Blizzard has so far shown itself immune from Invisible Hand influences. This is most probably because of an emphasis on long term brandname integrity and subsequent long term profit. But one does have to wonder whether in-game content like "pets" is a product aimed at high-quality-to-price, long term profit or if it is a product designed for low-quality-to-price, short term profit.

Since the change in leadership in EA, they actually ships out some good new IP, and their management of recently acquired bioware is actually not deplorable, all since their changes in CEO's.

Archer, the current company that is hip to hate is activision. Get on board dammit

;D

I'm not worried. Everyone was like ZOMG EA GREED WILL BRING END TO GAMING HUDDURRRR. Then their stock tanked, uppermanagement took fire, a new CEO, and now they're back to making somewhat mediocre instead of outright deplorable products. (but of course, yearly madden 20XX is still in place).

The same thing will happen to activision.

The reason why I bitch about blizzard doing this is because I care. I really don't care about EA or activision.

[spychi]

Since the change in leadership in EA, they actually ships out some good new IP, and their management of recently acquired bioware is actually not deplorable, all since their changes in CEO's.

Archer, the current company that is hip to hate is activision. Get on board dammit

;D

True true, Acti now is the worst game company, with the worst fucktard in the lead *cough* Kotick asshole*cough*

[ArcherofAiur]

this is why if something will be crappy and expensive, people won't buy it, it's that simple

Its not that simple. People are different. It is possible for you to make more money by selling a low quality product to a small portion of people provided they are willing to pay a higher price.

If a player buys an in-game pet that costs 10 dollars. That player has just bought 1/6th of the original games price. If half the players each buy 12 microtransactions youve just remade the games purchase value.

[spychi]

belive me, there will be no map that will cost more the 5 bucks
also there will be a rating system for maps, soo if something will be rated 5/5 and will cost few bucks than it is a reasonable price and if something will cost 5 bucks but it will be rated 1/5 than the map maker will be forced or to lower the price/make it free, or work on the map more and more and more until it will bring some quality, it's that simple
don't be afraid, Blizzard knows what he is doing and he will not milk from us money for crappy things
Blizzard=quality and the best community support in the world of gaming

if you will support and work for a fansite you will understand how important you are for them

ask me, LoA, Gradius, Rise, ChaosSmurf, ElemenT, anyone who supports/has his fansite and is a member here

[ArcherofAiur]

On the subject of whether or not Blizzard will lower the quality-to-price ratio, let me ask you this

would 6 of these



be equal to the same product quality as this

[Triceron]

Its not that simple. People are different. It is possible for you to make more money by selling a low quality product to a small portion of people provided they are willing to pay a higher price.

If a player buys an in-game pet that costs 10 dollars. That player has just bought 1/6th of the original games price. If half the players each buy 12 microtransactions youve just remade the games purchase value.

People who play WoW do this on a whim. Ingame pets is not the first time this has happened. If you actually do the research, you'll see this has been happening for years now.

TCG has ingame benefits if you buy the cards, leading to people putting the Spectral Tiger mount on ebay for $300+. Last Blizzcon offered a DirectTV broadcast that also gave a in-game non combat pet for $50.

Many people have the money to spend and will spend it on something you enjoy. It doesn't matter if it's a tangible object or not, if you like it you will buy it. Just like how people buy MP3's or music off Itunes, I don't see this as any different.

The concern that Blizzard makes high-quality content or relative low-quality content is moot. Absolutely irrelevant. High quality Low quality is subjective. Are the free neutral heros in Warcraft 3 any different in quality than those offered in the expansions? How would you guage the online bonus RPG if you paid for it rather than got it for free? How did you guage the Frozen Throne campaign from having to buy it?

The monetary factor in all of this is irrelevant. The way anyone should judge these microtransactions should be based on 'do I want it enough to pay money for', nothing else.

-Edit-

Archer- For people who spend $10 on lunch, or $10 on a movie, Lil'KT is nothing. Comparing the price of vanity pets to expansions is irrelevant when you're obviously offering this content to different audiences. Lil'KT makes a great, cheap christmas gift for guildmates.

[spychi]

if it's something uniqe and someone wants to have it and it doesn't affect the gameplay much, than yes!
do you play World of WarCraf?
do you have some in-game pets?
do you like them?
do you want to buy them, because you like to collect things?
if on any of these questions you answered no, than your point is biased and without the propper experience.

The monetary factor in all of this is irrelevant. The way anyone should judge these microtransactions should be based on 'do I want it enough to pay money for', nothing else.

exactly

[ArcherofAiur]

People who play WoW do this on a whim. Ingame pets is not the first time this has happened. If you actually do the research, you'll see this has been happening for years now.

I know it has. People have been predicting this trend for a while. Thats why its funny when people think this is where microtransactions will end.