If reception to Baldur’s Gate says anything, it’s that people hate microtransactions in their AAA games.

  • @Blackmist
    link
    English
    57
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Didn’t we also learn this from Tears of the Kingdom, or God of War, or Horizon Zero Dawn, or Dark Souls, or indeed hundreds of great selling AAA single player games?

    But we also learn from the repeated success of Call of Duty, FIFA, Fortnite or any successful multiplayer games that people fucking love microtransactions.

    Different players? Maybe, but I’d suggest there’s also a lot of overlap. I know lots of people that play both. People consume. Some games support the microtransaction model better than others, and those are typically the ones designed to be played in fits and starts all year, rather than completed and shelved.

    • @acastcandream@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 months ago

      or indeed hundreds of great selling AAA single player games?

      It’s important to note that the amount of single player AAA games has greatly diminished overtime. Most of those “hundreds” you’re referring to are not in the last 10 years, and the big bucks have been in live service. So yeah BG3 did great but it was a huge, 6+ year gamble ultimately. I WANT those gambles, but businesses would rather push out cheaper games at a faster clip because they make money. People still buy them and they still pay for DLC/MTX like crazy. It’s hard to compete against that.

    • @greenskye@beehaw.org
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      810 months ago

      I mean tears of the kingdom make $700 million + and Diablo Immortal made 525 million in it’s first year despite being almost universally rebuked online. Really seems like micro transactions have a really solid, if maybe not top tier return. Lots of companies try to make something like Horizon Zero Dawn and it totally flops instead.

      • @Blackmist
        link
        English
        110 months ago

        There’s a lot of games that go with the free with mtx model that flop as well. eFootball comes to mind. They had decades of experience with Pro Evo Soccer, their only real competitor costs $70 and is still laden with microtransactions, and it still couldn’t get off the ground.

        None of these games are cheap to make, and they’re certainly not cheap to market.

        • @bankimu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          I have not heard of it yet. Sounded intriguing. But a quick search of “eFootball” took me to a mobile game, with in-app purchases - not looking good and I am staying the fuck away. If they really don’t have mtx then they are doing something very wrong.

          • @Blackmist
            link
            English
            110 months ago

            Not sure which part of my post lead you to think they don’t have mtx. They very much do.

            I was using it as an example of an expensive flop on that side of the spectrum.

    • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      610 months ago

      I’m gonna say yes, different people, just based on my own play habits. I’ve played and enjoyed most of the big single-player franchises, but the multiplayer games don’t appeal to me much. I gave Overwatch a try because a bunch of my coworkers were raving about it, but the experience just felt shallow and hollow. They might be great if I was playing with friends in the same room (like back when I was in college), but playing with a bunch of strangers is no fun for me.

      • @Blackmist
        link
        English
        110 months ago

        I mean I stay away from the mtx games as well. But then I was raised in an age where you paid the price on the box and that was it.

        New gamers don’t know better. And kids especially have all the time and hardly any of the money, they’re happy to throw $10 pocket money at a “free” game they already enjoy for an outfit now, rather than save $70 for a new game they might not like in a few months.