Research Results: Predatory Monetisation in Games

interesting

All due respect to the opening post and the opening poster, I read the articles linked in the OP, very interesting and some very nice work.

Now regarding PoE specifically, GGG has very fair MTX IMHO. I think it is ridiculous to assert that the normal default items look bad or are a problem. I like the way that the PoE default stuff looks. The only exception to that rule is some Koam Roots I put on my Ranger once. They looked really bad and I had to use some mtx.

In the article, the authors stress that the data collected represent people's perceptions of fairness, not going into actual legal precedents for many of the various tactics.

That's perhaps why they chose to say "non-lootbox" sales pressures because the legal precedent is already there wrt lootboxes.

So it could be argued that eventually some of the things GGG does are unethical, and some may even have laws against them, but those laws and ethics are driven by people's perceptions of fairness, including people's reaction to some of their peers spending too much or being foolish.

So while it is safe to say that PoE is not a huge gouger when it comes to blatant p2w or areas of the game hard locked behind a paywall, there's other areas where some people find it cheesy and unfair. Stash and storage QoL, the ability to auto list items for trade, even extra character slots could fall under this rubric. But they're at best indirect p2w and their effect on player success is highly variable.

As for price point see my comment above. Would it be fairer for everything in the mtx shop to cost $1 but be seasonal? One-use like a skin transfer? More accessible perhaps, but probably still viewed as a waste of money.

There are practical limits to how cheap an item can be. Many payment processors will charge a fee to either sellers or buyers if the amount is too low. For all practical purposes a transaction needs to be around $10 USD to be clear of handling fees.

Even a single-use mtx needs to reflect its durability e.g. a non-gear non-skill perma mtx such as a character outline effect, marquee animation, or pet might be equipped for several months or years. Pricing this at a dollar might sell more, but not "more enough" to make it worth the time and expense of creating it.

Previews and what you actually get standing in HO - that's a different matter and we've heard some conflicting commentary about how GGG wants to handle the mtx store preview system.

I think it's pretty telling when a channel exists solely for buying and previewing actual MTX on an actual poe character under realistic game conditions. This expense and effort should be borne by GGG staffers, but it's not. It reminds me of those comic book back section ads showing sports equipment, tech gear, or fancy scientific doodads.

"High resolution space telescope - 12 interchangeable lenses and camera port - just $39.99" and you send away for your own home astronomy telescope, and when it arrives, it's cheap plastic trash, and the only way you could see stars with this thing is if someone whacked you upside the head with it. Ergo, Consumer Reports is a thing, and euroland has collective policies about quality of digital goods to help address this. Cosmetics are very subjective and may depend on all sorts of factors that lie with the end user: your gpu, instance, server, time of day, what character you're using it on, other mtx. Can't control for all of these.

That said, we support efforts to make corporations do some internal testing before selling products to the general public.

tl;dr: with the exception of cosmetics PoE is not even close to the most notorious predator of the unwary and naive gamer.

People need to stop equating "predatory monetization" with charging for stuff.

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

People need to stop equating "predatory monetization" with charging for stuff.

There is a huge difference between simply charging for stuff and being predatory about it. Loot boxes for instance in many games are designed to entice anyone with a possible gambling problem or who is susceptible to that carrot-on-a-stick to keep paying, and those people do. I've seen people drop hundreds of dollars on loot boxes (ridiculous to do in my opinion) Mobile multiplayer games are notorious for pay-to-win schemes that especially affect young players. The entire design of the game is to support it, from flashy graphics to big pop-up buttons to the fact that a purchase gives you an instant advantage over your opponent. It's extremely predatory.

Those kinds of games and developers are not just charging for stuff.

GGG actually is though. I don't consider anything they do predatory. They charge for tabs you don't really need but are nice to have, they charge for cosmetics that you don't really need but are nice to have. Nothing predatory about it.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

"

Shagsbeard wrote:

People need to stop equating "predatory monetization" with charging for stuff.

There is a huge difference between simply charging for stuff and being predatory about it. Loot boxes for instance in many games are designed to entice anyone with a possible gambling problem or who is susceptible to that carrot-on-a-stick to keep paying, and those people do. I've seen people drop hundreds of dollars on loot boxes (ridiculous to do in my opinion) Mobile multiplayer games are notorious for pay-to-win schemes that especially affect young players. The entire design of the game is to support it, from flashy graphics to big pop-up buttons to the fact that a purchase gives you an instant advantage over your opponent. It's extremely predatory.

Those kinds of games and developers are not just charging for stuff.

GGG actually is though. I don't consider anything they do predatory. They charge for tabs you don't really need but are nice to have, they charge for cosmetics that you don't really need but are nice to have. Nothing predatory about it.

They are predatory in MTX boxes.

They release a chest with combinable content, and then after they started the practice, began adding the items straight to the item mall 2 and then 1 league later.

The honeymoon is meant to entice gamblers, vs the flat rate purchase being relatively high once it hits the mall (30 credit box vs 140 per piece when it hits the mall). This is designed to trigger the gambler's brain into risking 30 credits to get it cheaper, which usually results in some useless crap. The fact they sell it later is a slap in the face after you spend 500-900 credits trying to get what you want out of the chests.

Still.... I don't care what a company does, because it's up to people with credit cards to decide to spend poorly. Aka adults.

"

crunkatog wrote:

In the article, the authors stress that the data collected represent people's perceptions of fairness, not going into actual legal precedents for many of the various tactics.

That's perhaps why they chose to say "non-lootbox" sales pressures because the legal precedent is already there wrt lootboxes.

Just view it for what it is: Not a scholarly data with no substantial study. It's just purely a categorization of data gathered through a survey. It hasn't been extracted as a statistical study of any kind at all. Most of us could come up with the same list purely by creating a decision tree based on our own experiences.

Something like this being published is purely an opportunity to get people talking about monetization again, versus just charging for a service. It doesn't even compare people who don't believe charging is predatory vs people who do believe it's predatory.

"

rekikyo wrote:

They are predatory in MTX boxes.

They release a chest with combinable content, and then after they started the practice, began adding the items straight to the item mall 2 and then 1 league later.

The honeymoon is meant to entice gamblers, vs the flat rate purchase being relatively high once it hits the mall (30 credit box vs 140 per piece when it hits the mall). This is designed to trigger the gambler's brain into risking 30 credits to get it cheaper, which usually results in some useless crap. The fact they sell it later is a slap in the face after you spend 500-900 credits trying to get what you want out of the chests.

Still.... I don't care what a company does, because it's up to people with credit cards to decide to spend poorly. Aka adults.

I forgot about MTX boxes, probably because I dislike them with every fiber of my being and ignore them in any game I play.

POE was always about cosmetics and stash tabs, with no loot boxes. Guess they too had to jump on that revenue bandwagon.

Remember when you could just buy a game at the store and play it forever? You'd bring the large, detailed instruction book with you to the toilet and you never had to purchase anything else unless it was an expansion pack. Damn it.

"

MrSparkle001 wrote:

Remember when you could just buy a game at the store and play it forever? You'd bring the large, detailed instruction book with you to the toilet and you never had to purchase anything else unless it was an expansion pack. Damn it.

Software-as-a-service. Subscription-model entertainment.

Remember when you could watch shows (mediocre ones, but they were there) for free on your TV?

Now if you want to watch shows, even old syndicated reruns, you pay and hope it will remain available in your country. And that your internet connection is good enough to stream it.

EVERYTHING went to the cable model and it sucks. You own nothing. Many old games won't run because consumer accounts for major gaming platforms have reissued them as software-for-rental. You have to rebuy and redownload the "remastered" versions to play multiplayer and sometimes even singleplayer. Can't even boot the game unless you have an internet connection to make sure you aren't a filthy pirate. No modding, no campaign editors or postmarket creative content.

"

crunkatog wrote:

Software-as-a-service. Subscription-model entertainment.

Remember when you could watch shows (mediocre ones, but they were there) for free on your TV?

Now if you want to watch shows, even old syndicated reruns, you pay and hope it will remain available in your country. And that your internet connection is good enough to stream it.

EVERYTHING went to the cable model and it sucks. You own nothing. Many old games won't run because consumer accounts for major gaming platforms have reissued them as software-for-rental. You have to rebuy and redownload the "remastered" versions to play multiplayer and sometimes even singleplayer. Can't even boot the game unless you have an internet connection to make sure you aren't a filthy pirate. No modding, no campaign editors or postmarket creative content.

Yep. Luckily I'm old enough to not care too much anymore as my prime gaming days are behind me.

But at the same time, gaming has become very big business. It never used to be, not when I was growing up anyway.