738

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Veraxus@kbin.social 195 points 1 year ago

That article completely misses the forrest for the trees.

It’s a complete game. It was created with vision, passion, love, and complete creative freedom. It has a great story and interesting characters. It provides lots of player agency. It is unflinchingly candid, mature, and uncensored. Your choices, actions, and inaction ACTUALLY MATTERS. There is no DRM. There are no live service strings. You can play alone and/or with friends. There are no strangers or PvP to ruin your game. And yes, there are also no micro-transactions.

The lesson that BG3 offers isn’t just one thing… it’s a LOT of things. But the best way to sum it up is: it’s a great game and it treats players/customers with respect.

[-] hh93@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago

I think the most important part is that it launched without DRM on GOG and was able to be pirated from day 1 and it STILL was a huge success because people knew that the game isn't trying anything shady to get even more money from you

It's just something people actually want to support and not like people feel like even if they buy the game they only have half an experience if they don't spend more money later

I really hope the next financial report from Larian is making people think differently about the necessity of putting aggressive DRM in their games

People don't pirate because they don't want to pay - they pirate because they don't trust the game to bit pull more shady shit later and not be worth it in the end

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 27 points 1 year ago

-800k concurent player on launch

-no drm and can be pirated on first day

-some exec: that could've been higher if you get Denuvo in it.

[-] hierophant_nihilant@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago

Omfg, I'm 100% sure there are corporate cunts who are saying that

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

I have avoided reading much about the game. I am loving it, but I have no idea at what point in the game that I currently am. It could end in the next ten minutes and I'll be satisfied with my purchase, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's another 10+ hours. This is what I was waiting for Bethesda to release as the next Skyrim successor if they hadn't decided to milk that cow until troll cheese came out. It's everything I want in a game. Story, gameplay, length, affordability, fun, and no microtransactions making my efforts feel worthless.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] EremesZorn@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

So far, every article I've seen about Baldur's Gate 3's effect on the gaming industry has been horse shit. Other studios and publishers are not "panicking," they're not going to rethink microtransactions, and they're not going to be daunted by this release; some devs have said as much already along the lines of "Yeah don't expect this breadth and scope from us going forward, because it doesn't work for our games."
This game is not the industry-spanning "gotcha" these writers have been trying to make it out to be. AAA devs or publishers are going to continue their nonsense because people will continue to buy their shit anyway, and they know it.
All that said, BG3 is the best game I've played in a number of years and hands-down the best cRPG I've ever played. It smokes Divinity, Icewind Dale, the previous BG games, NWN, etc. So if any studios do happen to have a positive takeaway from this, maybe we'll see at least some of that polish in games down the line.

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

It’s also a rare example of where a massive budget without restrictions (relatively speaking) can lead to amazing results.

Usually one of two things happens: the publisher is tired of dumping money into a project then force it to market too early, or scope creep happens and the developers bite off way more than they can chew and there’s nothing they can do past a certain point.

Larian managed to dodge both of these bullets. Not by luck, of course. But they dodged them nonetheless.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] whatisallthis@lemm.ee 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The job of the AAA gaming company is to make money, not good games.

For the same reason McDonalds is never going to serve filet mignon, big gaming companies are never going to release feature-compete passion projects.

[-] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 year ago

Not exactly, though I see your point. I think it would be more accurate if McDonald's charged for ketchup, mustard, salt, drink cups, lids, straws etc.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] UlrikHD@programming.dev 29 points 1 year ago

Witcher 3, the Last of Us (ps3), Baldurs Gate 3, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Elden Ring, Read Dead Redemption 2 (offline), Zelda, etc...

There are plenty of triple A games that were well received that didn't involve gambling and mtx.

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ones that weren't well received like Cyberpunk 2077 did well too.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] tonytins@pawb.social 17 points 1 year ago

Doesn't mean people should accept their attempts to nickle and dime them.

[-] hagelslager@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago

Indeed, the job of most AAA game studios is to get as much money as possible from the gamers to their shareholders.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sushibowl@feddit.nl 68 points 1 year ago

How could you learn anything about what people think of microtransactions from the success of a game that doesn't have them? If a beloved franchise added a sequel with microtransactions in it and that sequel tanked, then maybe you'd have a case. From the success of Baldur's Gate 3 the most you could conclude is "people will still buy a game that doesn't have microtransactions," which is not particularly revelatory.

A bunch of AAA games that heavily feature microtransactions are smash hits and made millions of dollars. Sure, people complain about it, but they also purchase tons of them (may not be the same people, mind you). I'm pretty sure we can conclude that not all people hate microtransactions. Hell, publishers will look at Baldur's Gate 3 and probably go "man, this game is good but if they put some paid cosmetics in there they could have made even more money."

And it's probably true.

[-] PorkTaco@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

All 100% correct unfortunately. These companies put in micro transactions because they make a boatload of money off of them. End of story. Til that changes, they will continue to shoehorn them into games to sustain the unsustainable infinite growth/profit model. Until pissing us off costs them more than they gain from it, it ain't gonna change.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 8 points 1 year 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 8 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ugetsu@feddit.de 51 points 1 year ago

People hate them so much that it became the most lucrative way of monetizing games ever.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that statement is so dumb. Even if it's hugely successful, a game of this type is made for a niche audience. That niche audience does hate microtransactions but they're in no way representative of the mainstream.

[-] EremesZorn@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago

I think, with 700k concurrent players, we need to recognize cRPGs may not be as niche as we previously thought. However, your point stands: this isn't going to hurt anyone's revenue from MTX.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DaSaw@midwest.social 45 points 1 year ago

The industry can't learn this lesson from their customers, because they didn't get the bad idea from their market. It's a society-wide trend, a symptom of a whole economy under the control of a narrow coproate elite that knows little to nothing about the industries they control or the products they produce. They contribute nothing to the productive process. They only work to streamline the parasitism that infests our society.

I have experienced this on the production end, as well. I used to work in pest control. For a brief period of my career, I was lucky enough to work for a midsized regional company, grown from a small family business, that was focused on solving actual customer problems. We did tons of one shot work. We did do quarterly and bimonthly service, but there was no particular pressure to subscribe, or to cajole customers who wanted to cancel service (because we'd successfully dealt with the problem) into continuing service.

Then the elderly couple that owned the company sold us to a global megaconglomerate (one of the "Big Three"). Over the course of a year, our focus changed. "Recurring revenue" was now the watchword, which is a tough fit in an inherently seasonal industry. And the reason they do this, in pest control, in game development, in every industry that can potentially produce any kind of surplus wealth, is because the owners ("investors") neither know nor care about any of the details of the industries they control. All they want is regular and ever-increasing revenues, in exchange for nothing at all. You can't even say it's in exchange for access to their savings, because though there is a little actual savings in the system, that's chump change compared to the ever growing wealthy elite that controls our society and devours our productivity.

[-] setInner234@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago

Beautifully written and entirely spot on. The question is whether we will do anything about it. We probably have 10-30 years before this elite will entrench themselves forever with some kind of robot police that truly can't be overthrown. (And it's not like anyone is rising up now, even though the power is clearly with the workers)

And then this elite will Habsburg-jaw themselves into oblivion and all that remains of humanity are machines built in the name of shareholder profits. What a sad way for things to end.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gargleblaster@kbin.social 43 points 1 year ago

Baldur’s Gate 3 is certainly the latest and most prominent example, but Elden Ring, both Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom. The Witcher 3. The Last of Us Part 1 and 2. No cash shops, substantive DLC, if there is any.

And what do all those games have in common?

They're solo games.

It's PvP and MMOs where you can purchase an advantage, show off your bling, or purchase expansions to get a head start on the competition. That is where the microtransaction infestation occurs.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

That is where the microtransaction infestation occurs.

Horse armour has entered the chat.

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago

Dude MTX are all over solo games too, what are you smoking

[-] Neato@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And...every single ubisoft game. And bethesda games. I could go on...

And Baldur's Gate is multiplayer. You can easily play 4-player online co-op.

[-] alternative_factor@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Yup, this is why the last two Diablo games have been always online, no one is going to spend $25 on a skin macrotransaction when nobody else can even seen it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

I don't want the lesson to be learned that devs should only make single player games either. Baldur's Gate 3 itself is co-op, for instance, and Elden Ring has substantial online components for multiplayer and otherwise.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MoonRaven@feddit.nl 29 points 1 year ago

I think the point is that people love good games.

[-] emptyother@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

I've seen a bunch of good games being ruined by microtransactions and battlepasses. At least I believe that they could have had so much better sales and reputation if they didn't include it.

For example: Shadow of War. Deus Ex Mankind Divided. Good games. These had microtransactions hooked on as an after-thought. It didn't affect gameplay at all and could be completely ignored. Still they received so much hate for it. And then there are games adding microtransactions and nobody care. Most Ubisoft games for example. I think it has with who their target audience is. Though I can't see what DX and SoW audiences has in common. Do they have less casual players than Ubisofts games? Idk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] arc@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

Hogwarts Legacy also sold a shit tonne, in part because you got the whole game, not half a game with a "season pass" or pay to win DLC.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

This is like saying, "people need air to breathe." The fact this is a revelation to gaming studios is deeply concerning.

I played some when it was in early access, and I've been absolutely loving BG3 now that it's officially released. I haven't felt like this about a game in a long time, and it's probably because Larian studios treated this like Divinity Original Sin - a complete game with loving care. As I saw in another review, they didn't make a D&D game, they just made D&D.

[-] Butterbee@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago

I feel like the revelation to gaming studios is not that people like a good product, it's that Larian was allowed to make one without investors demanding it be the shittiest thing since shit sandwiches.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

I feel like microtransactions are "ok" for people on general as long as the game is good. If the game is well made, has a soul, and not a cash grab, people tend to not care about microtransactions. Except the occasional "fuck, this is 10e?". Like path of exile for instance.

But if the game is half baked, released waaaay too early because of higher ups said that the need money now and not 6 months from now, THEN they become an issue. Games belong to this category soooo of then these days that it's just what happens. But the microtransactions are not the reason, they just exasperate the issue.

If a great game like Elden ring would've had cosmetic sets you could buy, would it have undermined the "greatness" of the game? I really don't see it happening. Unless they're like super aggressive or meant to trivialise the game, like, continue fighting the boss only for 2e! Here's a popup mentioning this each time you die.

[-] sushibowl@feddit.nl 8 points 1 year ago

If a great game like Elden ring would've had cosmetic sets you could buy, would it have undermined the "greatness" of the game? I really don't see it happening.

I agree with you that people mainly care about the game being good. However a game's budget is more or less fixed. If From had made a bunch of cosmetic sets it would be taking away resources from making the "main" game, and it may not have been as great and polished as it is.

Also, once you have microtransactions in a game, there's going to be a temptation to maximize the revenue gained from them, which can lead to the aggressive strategies you mention.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do mtx without ruining the game, but it's difficult. Without mtx, the only thing you have to maximize your revenue is to make the game as good as possible, and so everyone involved in the game's development is aligned towards that goal.

Once you add mtx, there will be people involved whose main goal is to maximize revenue from the mtx (and I'm not saying those people are evil or want the game to be bad; they're just doing their job). And so a sort of tug of war starts to happen between devoting resources and design decisions to make the game better, or getting people to buy your cosmetics. Finding the right balance through that mess is difficult.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mandy@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

A lesson that isnt needed Mtx are as prevelant as they are cause they sadly work

"Everybody".shits on d immortal and overwatch 2 Yet they still bring in huge profits

[-] Riker_Maneuver@startrek.website 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I keep seeing the posts about OW2 where everyone is acting like blizzard is getting destroyed by the poor reviews, but, like you said, they still already made bank on these games in spite of all the complaints that have existed since launch. Blizzard just out here like:

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago

It always felt like it wasn't that they didn't know this, its just that they don't care. I'm sure they've done extensive research on exactly how many people they can discourage from the game without harming the income from their whales.

Exploiting vulnerable people with predatory practices in an underregulated market is almost always going to be a gold mine.

The modern model of buying AAA games is that of hostility between buyer and seller. You always feel like you're either being scammed or complicit in something immoral.

[-] gamer@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Nah, the lesson AAA devs will take from this is “gamers want more boobies”, and we’ll start seeing nudity DLC, romance season pass, plastic surgery loot boxes, etc. I bet even Link will show some ass cheeks in the next game.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
738 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30611 readers
241 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS