In recent years, more and more AAA-level game work began to join the built-in game store. In this store, players can choose to use real money for virtual game value props or services. Today our gamereviewbook will look at several games available in this year to see if such an approach is good or bad.
This year, the following games have been added to the game with built-in consumer systems: Middle-earth: War Shadows, Destiny 2, Star Wars: Battle Front 2 Beta and Assassin’s Creed Origin. These games are often listed at a price of 60 dollars up and down. And players against this built-in consumer system think that since they have spent $ 60 for this game, why they still can not enjoy the game all the content, and they also need spend extra money to get the full gaming experience.
In fact, the reason behind the hiding is very simple: Now develop a AAA level game masterpiece, need to invest more funds, and take more risks. With the development of the times and the industry, developer development costs borne by the developers at the same time, 3A game consumer spending levels have not significantly improved for a long time. The price of a game for 60 dollars has already been promoted since the 90s, but now the development cost of the game industry has increased by 5-10 times compared with the 90’s. At the same time, the impact of the mobile market, the video game market growth is limited.
Visceral Games, which EA closed shortly before, cost $ 60 million to develop Dead Space 2, while games sold nearly 4 million. If all 400 games were sold for a full price of $ 60, then Dead Space 2 would be able to recover about 240 million of the funds, enough to make a profit. But the fact is that there are a lot of discount copies in 4 million sales, making the revenue of Death Space 2 after deducting all kinds of dividends, but ultimately it did not make any profit to EA. “4 million copies are not enough,” Visceral’s designers made it clear on Twitter.
On the good side of this approach:
For game companies, this built-in consumer system approach: reducing the risk of developing the game. Because players not only need to pay $ 60 for the game, but also make a lot of money for additional payment to get more gaming experience. And because of the increase in investment, the players will increase the viscosity of the game – making a game have a longer life-cycle.
For the player, extra spending always causes discomfort to the player. This is equivalent to you eating chips in KFC, KFC told you that if you need ketchup, you need to pay an additional $ 5. Before I consumed, I did not know that the money I was giving was not all about the game. I just got a “ticket” for the game. When I opened the game, I found that I really played this game also requires additional payment.
As the player really needs attention:
As a game developer, getting more and more stable earnings is understandable. As gamers, we all look forward to playing a game that makes you feel satisfied. Players can pay extra for the game, but there is a prerequisite for not overly undermining the balance of the game.
For game developers, this approach seems to be the only way to deal with the ever-increasing cost. For the players, we seem to only accept this reality. Spend more time or spend more money. The system under the rational use, but also can provide players with higher quality games, but also for manufacturers to provide more profits. But the essence of the game is creativity and the arts, not to say that all games require built-in extra spending to be successful.