"Microtransactions make that possible"? Was that sarcasm?

by Anton P. Nym (aka Steve) , London, Ontario, Canada, Saturday, March 02, 2013, 08:15 (4288 days ago) @ Beckx

"Game designers gotta eat" works great for companies privately held by the developers making the games. It has a less easy fit with public companies looking for quarter to quarter margin improvement.

That public companies will slit the throats of their employees unless we shell out more money is not, in and of itself, the best reason to shell out more money.

The "ebil corporations" gambit doesn't work so well when indies are up against the wall too. EA and ActiBliz are notorious, for good reason given past practices, but they're not the only game corporations out there nor are they the only AAA producers out there.

I'll also point out that console AAA games have been fixed at $60 since the 360/PS3 came out, so call it 7 years to be Bungie-friendly. Since 2006 inflation has reduced that $60 (2006 USD) price to the purchasing power of ~$51 (2006 USD).* In comparison, on release the NES version of Contra retailed for $25 in 1988; in 2013 USD that'd be the equivalent ~$48.* Something to consider, particularly when you look at how many man-hours went into Contra versus what will likely go into Destiny.

(Would you be comfortable with Destiny as an $80 up-front fixed-price title?)

It's not a zero sum game, of course - making a basic game and adding options later that people can pay for may very well be a positive. PC expansion packs were a good marketplace option.

I agree that it's not a zero sum game; I just think that's part of what Cody's argument misses, and why blanket resistance to microtransactions is as misguided as blanket approval.

-- Steve's defintely sensitive to the cash flow aspects of the games industry; bad cash flow is the main reason he's no longer part of it.

* calculated using http://www.westegg.com/inflation/