The roundtable started with an invitation for those in the room to share their personal experiences designing or playing games with real money transactions within them. A few developers expressed their concerns about the ethics of the microtransaction model possibly putting their work in a bad light and one developer in particular expressed his wish to avoid microtransactions as a whole since he was not comfortable with it in the current environment. A few others pointed at the success they’ve had with microtransactions, and how the resources and capital it generated provided players with more content. That improved engagement and kept the game, and its player base, alive.
The roundtable then continued to set a framework for discussing the effect in game economies had on game design, highlighting three potential tiers of integration into a game. First, we identified games in which real money transactions only provide the player with additional cosmetic items for the player to use, with no mechanical impact on the game rules. It was pointed out that even though most found this form of monetization unobjectionable, it still prevents a player from self-expression and ownership, which can be detrimental to their experience. The next tier we identified was paying for access into new or additional content. This was not too problematic as developers acknowledge that much of this additional content could not be made without the additional capital the in-game purchase provided. The negative consequence of this, however, was a potential fracturing of one's player base due to limiting access via purchase. The third tier, and most problematic, was allowing the player to buy power and/or time via real money transactions. We acknowledged that good practice with monetization allowed players to accumulate currency through play in addition to real money transactions, but the roundtable did not come to a consensus on how valuable the players' time should be.
In addition to these tiers, developers also pointed out the difference in purchasing consumables versus purchasing “permanent” virtual items, and marketplace effects on these forms of monetization. The comparison eventually began a discussion on the game Magic: The Gathering (M:TG), which had traditionally been a physical collectable card game but was now fairly successful with the launch of the digital M:TG Arena game. Developers pointed out while the digital version no longer give player the chance to “cash out” via ordering physical copies of their cards like in a previous M:TG digital forms, The reduced cost and convenience of the digital version allowed players who had abandoned the game to return.
The roundtable ended with a open questions session in which students and young developers asked questions of the body. Most questions dealt with if certain monetizations had been tried by others and pros and cons of specific practices.
Overall, I had a exceptionally educational experience at GDC 2019, and would like to thank the Game Design SIG for hosting the roundtable. I feel some were very hesitant to talk about monetization as it has developed many negative feelings in player communities, but still has potential to allow the best game experience for all players, regardless of their personal buy-in.
Dr. Ibrahim Yucel is a scholar of game studies, virtual reality, new media, digital culture, and online communities. His research currently focuses on the evolving forms of gamification and mixed realities. He is the Coordinator of the Interactive Media and Game Design program at SUNY Polytechnic in Utica, NY. He teaches in the Communications and Information Design program at SUNY Poly and is an adviser for the Information Design and Technology masters program.
Posts
