To charge or not to charge

by Ben Zackheim { Apr 22nd 2005 at 12:02PM }

Epic Games prez, Mike Capps, is on record. He thinks charging for downloadable content is "lame". He writes on the Epic boards:

"As Joe said, there will be alts — available via Xbox Live as downloadables. And no, we're not charging you for downloads, that's lame."

My read is that he doesn't mean charging for ALL downloads is lame. He's just saying that charging for the kind of downloads they're offering would be lame. New characters, levels, weapons, etc. are par for the course in the PC world. It would probably feel odd for Epic to suddenly start charging.

This does pose an interesting question, though. If a PC developer is making a game for the 360, how does MS convince them that the microtransaction tools are worth using? Will a PC developer assume they'd have to make something more "valuable" than a new character, level or weapon to charge money? What exactly IS more valuable than a new character, level or weapon in a game?

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Zachary @ Dec 18th 2005 8:44PM

You hear that Bungie? Lame!

crstffr @ Dec 18th 2005 8:44PM

I dislike the idea. What kind of world is it when I buy a game, and you buy the same game, but you have serious advantage because you forked over cash for new weapons??

terrible.

IMO, if a developer wants to add content to an existing game, they should develop an expansion pack with all sorts of new goodies, just like they've been doing for many years. No ala-carte purchasing for single items. rediculous.

arich @ Dec 18th 2005 8:44PM

What in the !*$#*& are you talking about? "How does MS convince them that the microtransaction tools are worth using?" You guys don't get it, so let me enlighten you.

Microsoft does not make direct profits from microtransactions. They're providing them so that GAME DEVELOPERS can make profits from them. It is provided as a TOOL - a way of generating revenue out of the normal stream. And Microsoft knows that the developers WANT microtransactions.

Why?

If you had actually listened to J. Allard's GDC talk, you'd know. He spelled it out: it's the age of customizations. Where were those stupid ringtone and cellphone wallpaper commercials 2 years ago? The customization and personalization business is taking off, and it makes sense for it to spill over into the game sector. Game developers can sell custom skins for GTA characters, or special aftermarket parts for cars (that some people want, but others don't care about), or special skins and colorizations to give your Halo clan a specialized look.

But it can't work (and game developers can't provide that sort of customization) unless there's a feasible economic model for it. Coding and developing extra features COSTS MONEY. And making everyone pay for a skin that only a small handful of people are going to lose? That's retarded. Enter microtransactions.

Microsoft doesn't need to convince anyone to use microtransactions. Game developers are CLAMORING for it. It's an additional, self-subsidized revenue source. And if you'd talk to game developers, or actually listen to keynote speeches, and not just pull rumors and uninformed rants off blogs, you might know that already.

Daz @ Dec 18th 2005 8:44PM

Epic have offered extra content for their fans for FREE for years. FREE content, developed by them not users. Why can't other developers do this?

Little shitty "micro transactions" are what is putting me off the next round of consoles. Why should I pay for something that has been free on the PC for years?