An Activision Senior Director working on Destiny has listed 'monetization modeling' as a current project on his LinkedIn profile.
The LinkedIn page belongs to Senior Director of Product Management for Activision, Ryan Wener.
While the term 'monetization modeling' is too vague to safely draw conclusions, Activision has recently introduced micro-transactions to Black Ops II. Meanwhile, the case for micro-transactions is frequently defended by industry spokespeople including Cliff Bleszinski and an EA executive.
A new batch of concept art for Destiny was released earlier this week.
Comments
20 comments so far...
EvilWaterman on 30 Apr '13 said:
Oh for f**k sake...
theak47 on 30 Apr '13 said:
Word for word my exact thoughts!!
LiamT on 30 Apr '13 said:
pay to win again then? or something else?
Black Mantis on 30 Apr '13 said:
Pretty much confirms my fears about Destiny and possibly the reason why their "reveal" showed so little. I'm still interested in the title, but will definitely want to see how much "game" I get for £40 first.
Drusus on 30 Apr '13 said:
It's a new type of MMO from Activision, what were you guys expecting, free fluffy puppies. Bungie are intelligent, it'll have ways for you to enhance your experience but no pay to win.
Companies are always going to give you ways to pay for extra content these days, what you should be doing as a consumer is to support the companies who give you a full game worth of content in the initial package and then great new ideas in the dlc with no options to pay to win.
It's up to you to draw the line at what is a full games worth of content from the initial payment, Far Cry 3 would be a good example of a game with a great amount of content and then dlc that offers a totally new experience, in fact they're so good at it they can offer their dlc as a standalone game! Any Capcom game would be an example of how not to do it because they cut as many corners as possible to get the game to a shop quicker and then at the last second cut out the chunks of it they'll sell to you as dlc.
As for the extra monetization options, if a guy wants to spend a couple of quid for leopard skin pants that add nothing to his character but sweet good looks then that's up to me... I mean him. Weapon skins and fancy hats are hardly something needed for the story, let them earn a few extra squids, it may just tip the odds in them getting a sequel it's a tough market out there.
dapperbandit on 30 Apr '13 said:
It really depends what they are.
If you can pay for cosmetic things that's not a problem. If you can pay for XP boosts and exclusive weapons, that is a problem.
FishyGinger on 30 Apr '13 said:
I think they should make all their games free until they run out of money then they should close. I want free games!
LiamT on 30 Apr '13 said:
+1 i dont mind some stuff but unlocks to get better weapons etc are bang out of order.
i also hope they dont limit the game too much with skins etc if they are intent on selling them all.
illage2 on 30 Apr '13 said:
This game shouldn't even have Microtransactions since its FULL PRICED retail. Cosmetic things it can get away with, but things like XP boosts and new unlocks ..... NO
TheRandyNinja on 30 Apr '13 said:
i keep hearing that the games an MMO but im interested to see how this will work with activision not shelling out again for dedicated servers and instead opting for the cheaper P2P route. I hope its not going to be the case of all the good Armour has to be paid for but it wouldn't surprise me
EvilWaterman on 30 Apr '13 said:
I have no problem paying its just that i would much rather pay a sub!
billysastard on 30 Apr '13 said:
spot on, i want to buy a f**king game not a marketing platform.
qSPARTANp on 30 Apr '13 said:
Oh, I thought they said they were not having transactions??????????
Gash Gardner on 30 Apr '13 said:
Like others said if the transactions are purely for cosmetic purposes, go mental for all i care, just dont let it upset balance.
TheLastDodo on 30 Apr '13 said:
This.
Mobius Evalon on 30 Apr '13 said:
Microtransactions exist solely for the benefit of the developer. They stick things on there that cost nothing to create or implemement and want you to pay for them, and the scary thing is that people do it. Mobile games make tons of money on these kinds of things and now big multimillion dollar developers want to get in on the action too.
Whatever becomes of this is the fault of everyone who has bought into the microtransaction scam and emptied their wallets for absolutely nothing of benefit to them.
LiamT on 1 May '13 said:
+1
IMO just like how the people buying UT cards in fifa are ruining fifa due to the fact EA now put so much effort into pokemon footy now and not career mode etc that people actually pay for.
if we had refused paid DLC years ago we wouldnt be in this situation now and DLC would be free like it used to be. or they could do like was done on BF2142 and get a sponsor to pay for the DLC. i think it was intel paid for adverts in the DLC meaning we all got it free and it didnt fragment the player base like DLC does these days
FishyGinger on 1 May '13 said:
What DLC was free? And I highly doubt that. If people don't pay for it it won't be made, why would developers make extra content above and beyond the game and release it free? Some do but not the majority.
LiamT on 1 May '13 said:
yup, used to be free for UT and quake. the devs would often release free maps packs every x months. plus keep updating engines for years. Epic used to be an amazing developer back in the day. they also allowed users to create their own mods and whole new games using their engines. man i miss those days.
Gemini40 on 1 May '13 said:
Welcome to the future of gaming, folks.