Excessive Monetisation
I have numerous happy memories from playing Super Mario Kart on the SNES back in the early nineties. It was at the time and remains so today, a truly great game because it’s fun, very accessible and inherently social. Hence over the years there have been multiple iterations of Mario Kart across all of Nintendo’s platforms. All of which have been well received and provided gamers with what they want. In many ways it is one of key titles that have made Nintendo a global success as a gaming company and a brand. If you see any advertising featuring Mario and friends in go-karts, then it can be taken as read that the game will be a yet another great instalment of the franchise. Or can it? Which brings me neatly (and sadly not happily) to Mario Kart Tour; Nintendo’s latest foray on mobile platforms.
I have numerous happy memories from playing Super Mario Kart on the SNES back in the early nineties. It was at the time and remains so today, a truly great game because it’s fun, very accessible and inherently social. Hence over the years there have been multiple iterations of Mario Kart across all of Nintendo’s platforms. All of which have been well received and provided gamers with what they want. In many ways it is one of key titles that have made Nintendo a global success as a gaming company and a brand. If you see any advertising featuring Mario and friends in go-karts, then it can be taken as read that the game will be a yet another great instalment of the franchise. Or can it? Which brings me neatly (and sadly not happily) to Mario Kart Tour; Nintendo’s latest foray on mobile platforms.
Mario Kart Tour is a litany of gacha mechanics, multiple currencies and gated content. It’s a game that’s designed upon grinding through levels and earning currencies. Racing go-karts appears to be very much a secondary consideration. Naturally the game has the traditional Nintendo aesthetic, with the colourful environment and characters looking great on a modern smartphone screen. But it’s all superficial, as the game itself is hideously compromised by its monetisation. Characters, tracks and vehicles are locked behind pay walls that you can grind for, or if you prefer, spend some money to access. In its base form Mario Kart Tour is little more than a gaming tease. If you want to actually play the game in any meaningful sense, then you have to pay. And then there’s the insanity of the Gold Pass, a £4.99 monthly subscription allowing access to the 200cc racing class, which gives the highest point rewards and the best races. A price point that also buys you access to Apple Arcade and a hundred of the best mobile games around.
However, Nintendo are not the only company that’s happy to push ahead into the realms of excessive monetisation. Ubisoft have seen triple A gaming as a “service” for several years. However, the recent release of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint takes monetisation to new levels. There’s such a degree of microtransactional content it’s almost as if Ubisoft are trolling their player base. Skill points, crafting materials, weapons and their associated upgrades, are available to be purchased, right from the get-go. All of which have a direct impact on gameplay. And folk use to balk at the idea of a paid season pass. Plus some of the items in the in-game store are exclusives and not available by any other means other than paying. Considering that the base game (or should I say empty shell of a game) costs £60, it raises the question exactly how much must a player spend to have access to everything? Assuming that you are then presented with a fully functional game. I’m sure the answer to that question will emerge in the days to come.
Yet despite the egregious nature of such excessive monetisation being as plain as the nose on your face, a large percentage of gamers don’t appear to care. Mario Kart Tour was downloaded by 90 million unique users in its first week, which is six times more than Nintendo's second most popular game. It is too soon to ascertain sales data for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint as the game is currently in early access for those who pre-ordered and formally launches on Friday October 4th. But this is one of Ubisoft flagship franchises and I’m sure anticipated sales will feature heavily in their Q4 revenue targets. The bottom line is there is a lot of cognitive dissonance in the gaming community. People are happy to pay lip service to complaints of excessive monetisation yet end up doing the complete opposite and supporting the very thing that is the “problem”. Some gamers are enabling and validating the questionable practises of certain publishers and in doing so contribute to video games being held hostage by untrammelled greed.
Video games are a commercial undertaking and no one thinks that game developers and publishers shouldn’t be able to make a profit. But like any other consumer industry, video games needs to be a balanced and realistic quid pro quo. Payment should provide you with a fully functional game. Paid additional content should be an adjunct and not integral to the proceedings. If there must be microtransaction then make them cosmetic, although this also comes with its own set of problems, depending on the games core demographics. But the whole concept of “pay to start” is questionable in so far as you have not really been sold an entire product that is fit for purpose. Logicly, there will come a point when companies such as Ubisoft will go too far and finally the majority of gamers will simply say “no”. The film industry has had several tent pole movies woefully underperform leading to a re-calibration of business practises. Will we eventually see a record number of triple A games fall flat on their face? It’s not impossible. But the biggest question is when?
Regulating the Gaming Industry
2017 was the year that microtransactions, loot boxes and other egregious business models common to gaming finally came to the attention of the mainstream. The debacle that surrounded the launch of Star Wars: Battlefront II finally dragged this matter into the limelight and subsequently put in on the radar of various global, legislative and regulatory bodies. The genie is now well and truly out of the bottle and it’s now a question of waiting to see what happens next. I suspect that the EU may likely be one of the first regions to tackle the issue and that it may well be the mobile game industry that is first to fall upon its sword. If there’s a change in government in the UK, then there is scope for matter to be tackled here. There is already a strong lobby against current gambling legislation and it doesn’t take much of an imagination to envisage a tabloid led campaign against the iniquities of smartphone game addiction and it’s pay-to-win culture. Then there’s the issue of virtual items resold for real money via auction websites and the question of whether loot boxes are or are not gambling. Apples recent statement about games publicly declaring the odds of winning in advance, shows that the world is indeed slowly turning against this business model.
2017 was the year that microtransactions, loot boxes and other egregious business models common to gaming finally came to the attention of the mainstream. The debacle that surrounded the launch of Star Wars: Battlefront II finally dragged this matter into the limelight and subsequently put in on the radar of various global, legislative and regulatory bodies. The genie is now well and truly out of the bottle and it’s now a question of waiting to see what happens next. I suspect that the EU may likely be one of the first regions to tackle the issue and that it may well be the mobile game industry that is first to fall upon its sword. If there’s a change in government in the UK, then there is scope for matter to be tackled here. There is already a strong lobby against current gambling legislation and it doesn’t take much of an imagination to envisage a tabloid led campaign against the iniquities of smartphone game addiction and it’s pay-to-win culture. Then there’s the issue of virtual items resold for real money via auction websites and the question of whether loot boxes are or are not gambling. Apples recent statement about games publicly declaring the odds of winning in advance, shows that the world is indeed slowly turning against this business model.
Therefore, I welcome in principle the idea of sensible, measured regulation of this aspect of the game industry, seeing it as a logical extension of existing consumer legislation that protects the public. I suspect that the major game publishers will not see it this way and would not be surprised to see an army of lawyers mobilised to slow and impede the process. There is also the risk that this matter will get tackled by the worse sort of politicians in the most knee-jerk fashion, like the UK Video Recording Act of 1984. If that is the case, then the fallout could be quite substantial and could lead to some studios closing down or games being unavailable in some regions. Certainly, we may well see the implosion of triple A gaming as we currently know it, as developers struggle to generate what they see as a satisfactory return on investment. However, for every bloated tired and lazy big budget game, there are dozens of smaller, innovative and original titles. It can be cogently argued that a major industry shakeup would in the long term instigate a return to focusing on creativity, rather than following “established” trends. It is also not unrealistic to imagine that such a transitionary period would be met with a great deal of hyperbole, hysterics and bile from certain quarters of the fan community.
When political and economic change threatens the status quo, those with a vested interested will always reach for the worst possible scenario as a means to try and derail the process. For example, whenever tax avoidance comes under public scrutiny, companies such as Starbucks always imply that if the financial climate turns against them they’ll withdraw from the UK. I’ve always considered this argument rather puerile and similar to the child who threatens to take their ball home, if they can’t win. If the triple A game industry vanished overnight, we would not find ourselves in a world devoid of quality titles. Smaller, smarter and more importantly more ambitious companies would simply step in and fill the gap. Some franchises may well go to the wall only to be replaced by other comparable but more economically viable products. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice by Ninja Theory rather succinctly proved that you can produce a triple A equivalent game without the associated season pass, DLC and bloated cost. Therefore, I am cautiously optimistic regarding what lies ahead. Change can be painful and there may be some to be endured while the industry adapts. But as a blogger with a more than passing interest in games, I suspect that happens next will certainly provide numerous talking points and material to write about along the way.
Is Vanity the Achilles Heel of the Game Industry?
On the eve of the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II last Friday, DICE General Manager Oskar Garbrielson released a statement stating that paid microtransactions were to be disabled in the game for the immediate future. It was a major reverse of policy after several weeks of increasing debate and acrimony about the subject from Star Wars fans and wider gamers. It has now come to light that the decision was due to pressure from the rights holders themselves. Disney Head of Consumer Products and Interactive Media Jimmy Pitaro is apparently the driving force behind this U-turn. Naturally with a major movie release only weeks away and the prospect of huge merchandise sales over the holiday season, no one at Disney wanted to see a media circus that could impact upon their bottom line. What happens in the new year when the controversy has died down and the movie leaves the cinemas, remains to be seen. I suspect we have not seen the back of the loot crate issue but for the meantime the problem has been side-lined.
On the eve of the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II last Friday, DICE General Manager Oskar Garbrielson released a statement stating that paid microtransactions were to be disabled in the game for the immediate future. It was a major reverse of policy after several weeks of increasing debate and acrimony about the subject from Star Wars fans and wider gamers. It has now come to light that the decision was due to pressure from the rights holders themselves. Disney Head of Consumer Products and Interactive Media Jimmy Pitaro is apparently the driving force behind this U-turn. Naturally with a major movie release only weeks away and the prospect of huge merchandise sales over the holiday season, no one at Disney wanted to see a media circus that could impact upon their bottom line. What happens in the new year when the controversy has died down and the movie leaves the cinemas, remains to be seen. I suspect we have not seen the back of the loot crate issue but for the meantime the problem has been side-lined.
This entire matter is emblematic of a wider issue surrounding marketing, branding and PR. One that bleeds through into multiple facets of day to day life. We live in a curious world where politicians, communities and businesses are often very protective of their “image” and “reputation”. These may be hard earned through years of doing the right thing or simply be the product of proactive PR and spin. But the bottom line is no one wants to be negatively labelled these days, even if that label is justified. Hence, we live in a world were racists don’t like to be called such and companies hate to be perceived as “greedy”, although that is the nature of the very system that predicates their existence. Everyone seems to want to act with impunity but still be seen as a good guy and be able to hang out with fans at community events and bask in the warm glow of public adulation. It’s hypocritical and it stinks. Sadly, we allow it.
So, EA and DICE were told to stand down and this whole problem has temporarily been defused because Disney doesn’t want their image tarnished, although a little research will show they’re far from angels. Has this move worked? Well initial sales may be a little slow of Star Wars Battlefront II but it’s early days yet and I don’t see the game bombing any time soon. Fans also have very short memories and are their own worst enemy in so far as making a stand. People like to posture but they seldom care to go without and that is the only way to effect real change. What happens next with this game is still up for grabs. However, it does prove that vanity and “public perception” are the industries Achilles Heel and we should as gaming consumers continue to use this to effect the changes that we want. All we need to do now is figure out exactly what those are, as a cursory glance around the internet shows that gamers do not share a universal “dream”.