KSP 2 Would Have Microtransactions

[regex]

8 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Hopefully the devs take notes about what is happening to EA right now...

I think a lot of companies are.

What we're seeing is likely an exploratory phase, "what will people buy", and it may seem pretty scary to folks because "MUH FRANCHISE" but you've got to distance yourself from that and support the kinds of games you love from companies that share your ethics. If the IP is the only thing that matters to you then your spending will reflect that, and so on. When companies say things like Take Two does in the OP article they're just doing what comes naturally to any company: find a way to make money to stay in business and turn a profit. Public companies have the added burden of providing value to shareholders which generally leads to things like maximizing profit and providing growth, which also leads to these scary-looking statements and strange business explorations, but they are just as much governed by the immutable laws of the market as private companies. That is, you can influence their behavior through spending.

Unfortunately, just like democracy, everyone else (in theory) has a voice too.

[JK_Kerbineer]

1 hour ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Hopefully the devs take notes about what is happening to EA right now...

I never knew Reddit posts could get so many downvotes. I thought there would be a limit or something for the sake of the poster's sanity.

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, regex said:

What people are missing here is that there is a very simple solution to this issue and that is to make it non-profitable. Don't buy the games, don't buy the micro-transactions, it's pretty simple. That's how such a market works, it's not governed by any moral imperative beyond that which the people spending the money possess. If enough people buy into micro-transactions to make them worthwhile then companies will continue putting them into games.

Ah, that old chestnut.

It's not the simplest thing to influence the behaviour of hundreds of thousands of other consumers, tho I'll grant you it (probably) has been done. With my limited resources, the best attempt I could make would be to point out the non-desirability of these things whenever it comes up, which I have, but I could say your response to which in this thread @regex reminded me of pulling the wings off a fly.

It's not that I think you're wrong here - I'm completely convinced that this behaviour is the right behaviour for the result I want, it's just that too few people seem to agree or even realise that making microtransactions unprofitable would actually be the best thing for everybody, and I doubt microtransactions become unprofitable until we're approaching 100% of all players agreeing and practising this. So, in a nutshell, simple individual consumer behaviour is not a practical answer, but I'm still totally convinced that microtransactions are a blight on videogaming. In the face of overwhelming idiocy, that leaves me with few options to forward my cause besides whining a lot.

[regex]

Quote

It's not the simplest thing to influence the behaviour of hundreds of thousands of other consumers

Sure it is. What will they buy? Where's the point where they don't buy it anymore? That's what this is about, what will people pay for? Does it have value?

If you, as a consumer, want to influence others then you need to find an effective means to communicate with them.

Quote

but I could say your response to which in this thread @regex reminded me of pulling the wings off a fly.

Pardon me for speaking what I consider to be objective truth and logical conclusions in the face of ... hysteria, for lack of a better word. The thread title and the implications of it are downright ridiculous given the absence of any evidence beyond a vague company statement devoid of specifics and perfectly in line with everything I have ever witnessed regarding how a public company works.

Quote

it's just that too few people seem to agree or even realise that making microtransactions unprofitable would actually be the best thing for everybody

[citation needed]

Beyond your personal feelings, and please refrain from assuming I don't agree with you on some level.

Quote

and I doubt microtransactions become unprofitable until we're approaching 100% of all players agreeing and practising this.

You might be right there, that whole "milking whales" idea, since I'll bet you most players don't engage with microtransactions to begin with.

Quote

So, in a nutshell, simple individual consumer behaviour is not a practical answer

It actually is. So is announcing your intentions to act in such a manner as you may influence others. Meanwhile, companies that include microtransactions are going to try ensuring that those transactions include a lot of perceived value in order to influence people to buy them. This is how the world works, like it or not.

There's a reason I don't play online games anymore and also a reason why I only buy games that either entirely eschew, or only bother with cosmetic, microtransactions.

Edited November 14, 2017 by regex

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, regex said:

that whole "milking whales" idea

I happen to know someone who has spent over $1000 on a free game, and I'm sure there are those who have spent even more.  This 5% [citation needed] of players is who they're targeting.  If the other 95% gets angry on Reddit, it's really of little concern as long as the profits continue to roll in.

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Ah, that old chestnut.
...I'm completely convinced that this behaviour is the right behaviour for the result I want, it's just that too few people seem to agree or even realise that making microtransactions unprofitable would actually be the best thing for everybody, and I doubt microtransactions become unprofitable until we're approaching 100% of all players agreeing and practising this.

Not quite...publishers will refrain from exploring microtransations if incurring in an opportunity cost. 

What will solve your issue is not marking microtransation unprofitable, is making a more atractive model profitable.

[regex]

4 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I happen to know someone who has spent over $1000 on a free game, and I'm sure there are those who have spent even more.  This 5% [citation needed] of players is who they're targeting.  If the other 95% gets angry on Reddit, it's really of little concern as long as the profits continue to roll in.

Emphasis mine. There's that point where the 95% aren't going to be paying for the main product which hurts sales and the milking of said whales due to lack of sales (most especially in an online game). This is where the 95% can influence the product.

[Jim123]

this is sad another game ruined

[sh1pman]

44 minutes ago, regex said:

Emphasis mine. There's that point where the 95% aren't going to be paying for the main product which hurts sales and the milking of said whales due to lack of sales (most especially in an online game). This is where the 95% can influence the product.

But whales don't care about the community outrage, they'll still buy it and spend their thousands of bucks in it. There will be fewer non-payers for them to destroy, though. And that might hurt their sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, and may even make them move on to some other pay-to-win game to sink their hard-earned [citation needed] cash into.

[klgraham1013]

31 minutes ago, Jim123 said:

this is sad another game ruined

Which game?  KSP2?  As far as we know, that game doesn't exist.  Let alone have micro-transactions. 

1 hour ago, regex said:

Emphasis mine.

Yeah.  That line was intentional.

[regex]

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

But whales don't care about the community outrage, they'll still buy it and spend their thousands of bucks in it.

So what? As Spricigo correctly points out some other economic model needs to be better for games than microtransactions in order for microtransactions to become a thing of the past. That can't happen unless consumers change their buying habits.

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

There will be fewer non-payers for them to destroy, though. And that might hurt their sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, and may even make them move on to some other pay-to-win game to sink their hard-earned [citation needed] cash into.

Yes, if enough people who don't engage with microtransactions change their behavior and stop buying these products, and the money from them eventually dries up because all the e-peen "whales" gained from buying pay-to-win items means nothing because the only people they play with have the same stuff, then maybe you'll see a change in company behavior.

But until another economic model is more profitable microtransactions will be the way to go.

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Yeah.  That line was intentional.

I figured it was. Great point too.

[The_Rocketeer]

15 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Not quite...publishers will refrain from exploring microtransations if incurring in an opportunity cost. 

What will solve your issue is not marking microtransation unprofitable, is making a more atractive model profitable.

Granted I'm not in the position of having to innovate these things, but I find it hard to envision a more attractive model that wouldn't be completely compatible with a microtransaction module bolted on. The opportunity cost of adding microtransactions to any product must be miniscule, which I guess is why they have become so prolific so quickly.

12 hours ago, regex said:

So what? As Spricigo correctly points out some other economic model needs to be better for games than microtransactions in order for microtransactions to become a thing of the past. That can't happen unless consumers change their buying habits.

Yes, but the point you're missing is that the consumers of microtransactions won't change their habits because they don't care what the gaming community thinks, and the developers don't care if almost nobody buys their microtransactions as long as a small minority of players do. Since vanity sales and pay-to-win sales reinforce and advertise the concept of wealth-related superiority, these are the only guys that matter in the case at hand, and as @sh1pman said, they don't care what we or the vast majority of players think - as far as they're concerned we can just suck it up.

Based on some of your remarks it sounds like we're probably on the same side of the overarching argument, but your apparent faith in market forces to fix this is misplaced.

EDIT:

Let me try to explain this a little better.

Let's say 100,000 people (I guess this is actually a fairly small number but I dunno) buy a game with microtransaction content. For arguments' sake, this is not a F2P game, nor a competetive or a multiplayer game, but it does have a large fan community who share their experiences online (a bit like KSP).

Of those 100,000, lets say a tiny minority, say 0.1%, will buy every single vanity pack because due to their personal wealth status the purchase price is extremely reasonable and they love the game. So there are 100 people buy all the vanity packs, let's say there are 10 packs on release and 5 further are released in the lifetime of the game - 1500 microtransactions, at say 2 lar-dols apiece - 3000 lar-dols from microtransactions, right there, more than enough to break even. Then factor in the 10% of players that will buy a few vanity packs, and the further 30% that will buy at least one... conservatively that's another 12,000 lar-dols.

Now tie in the fact that the developer can decide to just add more vanity packs to make them even more profitable more or less whenever they want, because milking the whales is what they're about and hey, thar she blows!

For 59.9% of the gaming community, all these packs are doing is locking them out of content that their purchase price helped create, but that are being held back for additional premium profits. Most of the rest are on the fence. A tiny minority are making this worth it to the game developer, and for them it's a glorious deal because they're super-privileged reproductive organs and they don't care what we grubby peons think.

Edited November 15, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[regex]

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Based on some of your remarks it sounds like we're probably on the same side of the overarching argument, but your apparent faith in market forces to fix this is misplaced.

It's not misplaced, it's the ONLY way microtransactions are going to go away.

Gaming is a luxury, a hobby, it's not a "right", which means you're going to have a very hard time in the halls of governments convincing legislators that microtransactions are bad (at least until they're obviously bad and start to fall under predatory gambling schemes, and that varies even by state in the U.S.). If you want to do something to better your hobby market pressures are pretty much the only way. Market pressure can come in many forms; even complaining on Reddit can get results, I myself choose to spend my money on games and companies that best reflect my ethics.

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

For 59.9% of the gaming community, all these packs are doing is locking them out of content that their purchase price helped create, but that are being held back for additional premium profits. Most of the rest are on the fence. A tiny minority are making this worth it to the game developer, and for them it's a glorious deal because they're super-privileged reproductive organs and they don't care what we grubby peons think.

Welcome to the real world. Until and if someone can propose a better way, demonstrate that it is viable and a "win-win" for everyone, and can bring down pressure to make that change, nothing is going to change. In the meantime, you can rely on market pressure to actually do some work, as it demonstrably has.

[The_Rocketeer]

Just now, regex said:

It's not misplaced, it's the ONLY way microtransactions are going to go away.

...

In the meantime, you can rely on market pressure to actually do some work, as it demonstrably has.

There is a certain amount of logic to your perspective, but again, I can only say this is the part you are not getting. People who don't buy microtransactions don't count as votes against microtransactions, they simply don't count. This is because people with more wealth than them will continue to buy in their own self-interest/out of their own pomposity/vanity/lack of concern/ignorance to the suffering of those less privileged, rather than in the interest of the majority, and this will still make microtransactions profitable and preferable to business of many varieties, not only videogames, because the implementation cost of microtransactions is tiny and the potential reward orders of magnitude larger.

Market forces follow the money. They don't care whether a product is popular as long as a) it revenues more than it costs and b) there isn't a cheaper way to get the same revenues. Microtransactions are here to stay, and downvoting them may be all we've got, but it is NOT an effective way of eliminating them.

[regex]

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Microtransactions are here to stay

Better get used to it then.

[Pthigrivi]

I'll make a bold prediction: there will be no KSP 2.

[The_Rocketeer]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

Better get used to it then.

I think not. I prefer being a whiny (female) poodle to subjugation. No one should ever lose the desire for change just because they lack the power to cause it.

Edited November 15, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[regex]

2 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I think not. I prefer being a whiny (female) poodle to subjugation. No one should ever lose the desire for change just because they lack the power to cause it.

So basically you're going to buy games that include microtransactions and just whine about it. How very inspirational. I do hope your plan brings about the change you wish to see.

[The_Rocketeer]

9 minutes ago, regex said:

So basically you're going to buy games that include microtransactions and just whine about it. How very inspirational. I do hope your plan brings about the change you wish to see.

No, that's quite plainly not what I said. The words are all there for you to read again. FWIW I hope the same goes for you in your endeavours.

[regex]

18 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

No, that's quite plainly not what I said. The words are all there for you to read again. FWIW I hope the same goes for you in your endeavours.

So, wait, you DO plan to exert market pressures against microtransactions, perhaps by joining others to loudly boycott companies and games to express your displeasure at practices you disagree with?

That sounds like a much more realistic endeavor.

Edited November 15, 2017 by regex

[The_Rocketeer]

35 minutes ago, regex said:

So, wait, you DO plan to exert market pressures against microtransactions, perhaps by joining others to loudly boycott companies and games to express your displeasure at practices you disagree with?

Not exactly. I plan not to waste my own money on reckless spending, which to my mind includes valueless purchases such as microtransactions for virtual products that have no material value, and at best only dubious psychological worth. This isn't really a market forces strategy, it's just more or less my default behaviour when it comes to distributing my wealth, of which I have little. If it was a market forces strategy, I would imagine the market/all markets/even one single market ought to suit me pretty well by now considering how long I've been keeping this up... but it doesn't. So much for capitalism.

My main interest in this discussion is in trying to understand whether microtransactions have some hidden benefit I have yet to comprehend, or if not then why more people aren't more outspoken about how undesirable they are. I suppose you've informed me somewhat by bringing forward the 'blind faith in market forces to fix this' angle, but I can't agree with you over it because my experience of life tells me it doesn't work like that unless you happen to be at least comfortale with whatever trend is already going on.

The idea that we can control these trends by strategising our purchasing behaviour is akin to thinking one can set the course of a cargo ship by dipping one's hand in the water. I am never going to be able to deliberately set a course by such a method because I am so small and the ship is so big, and change is so gradual. Even if I had thousands of other people there who could help me, and even if they all agreed to change course to the same new one (which they wouldn't), we would lack coordination of effort to make a precise course change. And anyway the captain and crew (the people who actually buy microtransactions and the producers/developers) have control of the engines and rudder and they can correct the course to the port of their choice whenever they want because they have the power to overwhelm whatever we're trying to do. We might all jump ship as a result, but that hardly changes where the boat is going does it?

Edited November 15, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[regex]

25 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Not exactly. I plan not to waste my own money on reckless spending, which to my mind includes valueless purchases such as microtransactions for virtual products that have no material value, and at best only dubious psychological worth. This isn't really a market forces strategy,

it is, actually, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. How you spend is essentially how you "vote" on products.

Quote

it's just more or less my default behaviour when it comes to distributing my wealth, of which I have little. If it was a market forces strategy, I would imagine the market/all markets/even one single market ought to suit me pretty well by now considering how long I've been keeping this up... but it doesn't. So much for capitalism.

As I pointed out earlier, like democracy, everyone else (in theory) also has a "vote" on products. Whether capitalism is good or bad isn't up for discussion here because it's the system we have to work with at this particular moment in time. Changing that system is a much bigger task that, I guaran-damn-tee you, will take much, much more time; not in your lifetime or mine, or even my daughter's. This is what I consider realistic thinking. It doesn't mean giving up, it means making pragmatic choices, doing what you can to move the wheel, even if ever so slightly.

Quote

My main interest in this discussion is in trying to understand whether microtransactions have some hidden benefit I have yet to comprehend, or if not then why more people aren't more outspoken about how undesirable they are.

I don't personally see any benefit to microtransactions but others might. I'm pretty indifferent to them if they're purely cosmetic, there's nothing wrong with that in my mind. If they involve unfair advantages I can't get through normal play then I simply don't play or buy the game because I don't engage in microtransactions, it's pretty simple.

Companies certainly see a benefit to including them or they wouldn't be including them.

25 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

The idea that we can control these trends by strategising our behaviour is akin to thinking one can set the course of a cargo ship by dipping one's hand in the water. I am never going to be able to deliberately set a course by such a method because I am so small and the ship is so big, and change is so gradual. Even if I had thousands of other people there who could help me, and even if they all agreed to change course to the same new one (which they wouldn't), we would lack coordination of effort to make a precise course change. And anyway the captain and crew (the people who actually buy microtransactions and the producers/developers) have control of the engines and rudder and they can correct the course to the port of their choice whenever they want because they have the power to overwhelm whatever we're trying to do. We might all jump ship as a result, but that hardly changes where the boat is going does it?

Do you know why, in the U.S. (certain states, at least), the "organic food" trend became popular and affordable? Market pressure. Enough people wanted to see that sort of thing come around, for good or ill, whether it made sense or not. They bought into the initial, high-priced items, which showed that there was a demand, which increased production, which lowered cost as more competitors entered the market, which made them more available to other people, and so on. I remember a time when "organic" items in the States were literally 300~400% the price of comparable non-organic products. Now they're on the order of maybe 10~20% more. And, of course, this all varies by state as well (I live in one of the more hippie states, so this example is pretty natural and obvious to me).

This is reality, it's how things work. Now sure, the people actually buying microtransactions may have a bigger hand to dip into the water on the other side of the boat, which is why those with smaller hands need to win more people to their side in order to create a bigger effect.

But your analogy breaks down when you claim the company is in control of the direction of the boat.

They're not, they're just following the money.

Edited November 15, 2017 by regex

[The_Rocketeer]

49 minutes ago, regex said:

it is, actually, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. How you spend is essentially how you "vote" on products.

This is moot, but factually untrue. A strategy is not the same thing as a behaviour. My behaviour isn't based on how it will affect the market, it's based on how it will affect my bank balance. That's very different. The fact that it might contribute to or detract from market trends is the same as how my farts might affect the weather.

49 minutes ago, regex said:

As I pointed out earlier, like democracy, everyone else (in theory) also has a "vote" on products.

I'm veering away from the political comparison, otherwise @Vanamonde will delete all my posts again, but you cannot 'vote' against microtransactions by not buying them as you're describing. That's not voting. There's no 'I would spend more money to not have microtransactions in the game' option. That would be a vote against them. It would also be self-defeating for someone like me who, rather than strategising against microtransactions, is simply trying to avoid wasting money.

49 minutes ago, regex said:

Whether capitalism is good or bad isn't up for discussion here because it's the system we have to work with at this particular moment in time

I don't see how you expect it to change however gradually if it isn't discussed (head in sand?), or why you get to decide what's up for discussion? Also, the established system changes pretty damn quick when it suits the monied... see the Industrial Revolution.

49 minutes ago, regex said:

Do you know why, in the U.S. (certain states, at least), the "organic food" trend became popular and affordable?

...

There's no disagreement here. The choice to buy certainly affects markets, especially when choosing to buy something at a higher price than an equivalent at a lower price. That's basically the same side of the argument that microtransaction-buyers are on. The part where this doesn't pair up is when we flip it - if you think Organic food shouldn't be sold because it's a waste of productivity and raises prices, and anyway regular food is perfectly good (not my view, especially considering US food standards), but you and thousands/millions like you can't make it go away even though you don't/won't buy it.
 

49 minutes ago, regex said:

But your analogy breaks down when you claim the company is in control of the direction of the boat.

They're not, they're just following the money.

Or to look at it another way, they want the port where they'll get the best price for their goods, or even they're just visionaries who don't care how much money they make, they just want microtransactions everywhere - not every business makes sound decisions when they've got an idea.

Either way, they still get to steer the boat a helluva lot more than I do.

Edited November 15, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[regex]

3 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

you cannot 'vote' against microtransactions by not buying them as you're describing. That's not voting.

"Vote" is an analogy, which is generally why I include it in quotes. You are participating in a system that allows you a voice in what happens, in this case by spending money (or not) on a product. Your spending has a weight, and so does the spending of others, that determines what is the most profitable path for a company to follow (absent corruption and cronyism and things like that, but we're avoiding politics) by showing through supply and demand what is desirable.

3 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I don't see how you expect it to change however gradually if it isn't discussed (head in sand?), or why you get to decide what's up for discussion?

Microtransactions wouldn't exist without capitalism.

3 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Also, the established system changes pretty damn quick when it suits the monied... see the Industrial Revolution.

Yes, they have bigger hands to dip into the water.

3 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

The part where this doesn't pair up is when we flip it - if you think Organic food shouldn't be sold because it's a waste of productivity and raises prices, and anyway regular food is perfectly good (not my view, especially considering US food standards), but you and thousands/millions like you can't make it go away even though you don't/won't buy it.

If a product isn't profitable/doesn't sell then there's no reason for someone to make it. That's why spending/not spending can be considered analogous to a "vote" for a product whether or not you're strategizing or just trying to smartly spend your money. Of course this is all just economics in a vacuum because there can be (and generally are) many political considerations concerning how products are marketed and sold, but I sidestep those because that's not up for discussion on these forums.

Perhaps microtransactions will eventually fall under predatory capitalism rules? I have no idea how the relevant court battle might play out, or even if that's a possible angle to take, but it's another thing. I doubt it though, video games are a luxury item.

3 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Or to look at it another way, they want the port where they'll get the best price for their goods, or even they're just visionaries who don't care how much money they make, they just want microtransactions everywhere - not every business makes sound decisions when they've got an idea.

But market pressures will determine whether that decision was sound. If a company wants to stay in business they'll try to make sound decisions and try to predict risk. I think game companies/publishers are going to be a lot more jumpy about making decisions like Take Two and EA have recently because generating controversy cuts into their bottom line. This is why I earlier stated the people simply need to distance themselves from loyalty to franchise and instead spend their ethics. I don't generally like arguing in favor of companies but I can easily see why Take Two took the stance they did on modding GTA and also why EA initially tried to force microtransactions for content in the new Star Wars game. In both cases those decisions turned out to be very poor publicity and they might ultimately hurt their sales, but the decisions made sense. Take Two's stance in the OP article might also look really bad to some players which will draw people away from them as a publisher.

Market pressure works (I know I'll continue to scrutinize any game I want to buy for microtransactions before buying, and I sincerely believe that will make a difference, no matter how small). It may take some time to see results, and you certainly have to rely on the whims of people to shift towards your opinion, but that's reality; sometimes things just don't go your way no matter how right you think you are.

[The_Rocketeer]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

You are participating in a system that allows you a voice in what happens, in this case by spending money (or not) on a product.

No, I'm not.

[I've tried to make this point a couple of times now. I realise this is a sophisticated point, so please bear with me while I try to make it once more.]

Participation requires positive action. I cannot participate by declining to do something. That is non-participation. By declining to buy the product, I am declining to participate in the market. I am a non-entity, not a negative but a null. I do not matter to the market forces that drive profitability. I only begin to matter if I can be convinced to buy something.

With regards to microtransactions, this is a rigged system. If you buy from them, you are supporting to them, encouraging their proliferation, etc. If you do not buy from them, you are not supporting them or encouraging their proliferation, but you are also not denouncing them or discouraging their proliferation. You are not participating. There is no purchase you can make that does these things. If you buy another product that does not have microtransactions, you are outside the system - the reasons why you might have bought that product instead probably have nothing to do with microtransactions given the diversity of quality, style and experience on offer between various products. So in this case you have no voice one way or the other. Only if the two very similar products are in direct competition for the same players and the same money, one having microtransactions and the other not, are you given the opportunity to vote 'against' microtransactions. As far as I am aware, this has never ever happened, and frankly, why would it?

I feel like this is pretty fundamental to the point of discussion, and I'm feeling tired of talking in circles around it.

That being said I have a more profound respect for you after this conversation than in the past, which I mean as a compliment.