
Nintendo Asks Mobile Developers to Curb Microtransactions - Reedx
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nintendo-to-smartphone-gamers-dont-spend-too-much-on-us-11551864160
======
skrebbel
I grew up when games were entire games. I very much hope that this whole
microtransaction racket will be over by the time my kids are big enough to get
their own console (or whatever people game on by then). What a customer-
hostile clusterfuck, these people ruined a totally good industry.

~~~
mikepurvis
After a long-ish hiatus I picked up a Wii U two years ago for Mario Kart 8 and
BOTW. And then last year grabbed a PS4 for Horizon, God of War, Spider-Man,
RDR2, Gravity Rush, Uncharted 4, The Last of Us, Journey, and others.

Basically, there are a _lot_ of high quality single player adventures to be
had out there, and if you're patient enough to wait 1-2 years after release,
you can a) focus on just the good stuff, avoiding duds, and b) snag
complete/goty editions for very inexpensive, which will have all the DLC
included. See the the price trajectory for Horizon Zero Dawn, for example:

[https://psprices.com/region-us/game/1838981/horizon-zero-
daw...](https://psprices.com/region-us/game/1838981/horizon-zero-dawn-
complete-edition)

(And yes, I'm a grown-up with three kids; this is gaming done an hour or two
at a time a few evenings a week— gone are the days of pre-ordering a new
release and then pouring an entire weekend into it when it comes out.)

~~~
giancarlostoro
There's a community devoted to this:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers](https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers)

I usually wait for most games to go on a Steam sale, unless it's Bethesda or a
game that just looks exciting.

~~~
mikepurvis
Yeah, some people there are _really_ patient. You have to find the right
balance. For me, I'm patient in the sense that I didn't get my PS4 until late
in the generation, and probably won't get the PS5 on launch, but I also have
some interest in industry trends and the spectacle of the latest-ish graphics.
I also have limited time, so I'm not going to spend a ton of it digging
through the game catalogues from last-gen systems (especially if the cream of
the crop is available remastered for the current generation).

One interesting note particular to Nintendo is that other than the very
limited "Nintendo Selects", their first party games basically never go on
special. This means that if you want a deal on an older game, you have to buy
second-hand physical, because the digital game is still $60. (Don't believe
me? Twilight Princess HD, a 2016 remaster of a 2006 game, still retails for
full price: [https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/the-legend-of-zelda-
tw...](https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-
princess-hd-wii-u)) Anyway, the consequence of this is that in general you
just want to buy physical regardless for a Nintendo system because the
retained-value means you'll have the option to trade it in for much longer
than you would any other game.

This is in contrast to the PlayStation store, where there are weekly Steam-
like sales with loads of great games always available at the click of a button
for sub-$20. So much so that there are entire websites and subreddits that
track these things and trade recommendations around, see:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4Deals/comments/axn3f7/ubisoft_pu...](https://www.reddit.com/r/PS4Deals/comments/axn3f7/ubisoft_publisher_sale_na_psn/)

~~~
thaumasiotes
> One interesting note particular to Nintendo is that other than the very
> limited "Nintendo Selects", their first party games basically never go on
> special. This means that if you want a deal on an older game, you have to
> buy second-hand physical, because the digital game is still $60. (Don't
> believe me? Twilight Princess HD, a 2016 remaster of a 2006 game, still
> retails for full price: [https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/the-legend-
> of-zelda-tw...](https://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/the-legend-of-zelda-
> tw...))

Actually, this is not particular to Nintendo if you extend it a little bit.
Disney does the same thing with their classic animated movies. It's a
statement from the company about the quality of their brand.

~~~
Gene_Parmesan
Yes, Nintento has always refused to dilute their brand value/cast doubt on
their quality by lowering the pricing. You can see this all the way back in
the NES with the "seal of quality," and how rare it was to find games for the
system that released without that seal. They legitimately felt like bootleg
releases even if they were from Capcom or something.

------
alias_neo
As a life-long gamer, I was almost ready to give up on the fun kind of gaming
experience I knew as a child, thankfully the Switch came along and it even got
my wife back into gaming, who hasn't gamed since N64.

I hate micro transactions with a passion, because I _know_ they exist to keep
taking money off of you just to get an enjoyable experience.

The only game I buy micro for is PoGo because my wife enjoys it and it's
something we can do together, outdoors, but PoGo doesn't even need you to buy
them if you're in a well populated area.

------
Groxx
Good. They're a plague on fun. This kind of thing is part of the reason I keep
buying Nintendo products.

~~~
thomasfortes
I don't have time to grind games anymore, so I simply don't play games that
have microtransactions, if a game has good and complete DLCs, that's still
okay, but I remember fondly the times where games came complete when you
bought them.

Also, they are predatory, so that's other reason for not support them,
companies that try to sustain themselves using addicted "whales" deserve to
fail as soon as possible.

By the way, the most downvoted comment[0] on reddit history so far is exactly
one when a big company (EA) tried to stuff a lot of microtransactions in a big
brand name (star wars), fearing the backlash, disney intervened and told EA to
remove them.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b...](https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/?st=JH2MUORV&sh=5997c5a5)

~~~
jhanschoo
Interestingly, a lack of time brought me to a different conclusion, and I'm
certain this is the reason why "uncreative" and "unfun" microtransaction-heavy
mobile games are still popular (the game in question is a mobile game). Note
that I'm not defending microtransactions themselves, but the low-immersion
simple and grindy mobile games that typically implement a microtransaction
monetization model.

Conventional games require a certain commitment of immersion and structured
time. But when I have the energy to immerse myself in something and the
available structured time, there are certainly more important or interesting
things I would rather pursue than a traditional game.

This is where mobile games come in. If I'm in an uncomfortable place when I'm
prevented from or unable to do anything interesting, such as in public
transport, it is comparatively pleasurable to grind a bit on these games. And
there are quite a number of these slivers of time in my everyday routine.
Mobile games are typically designed so that they are near-frictionless to hop
in and do something without a heavy context switch. They fill an entertainment
niche for me, and probably many others, that conventional games cannot
provide. Previously, light games like Minesweeper or Solitaire filled this
niche, but mobile games are of superior value since they offer a semblance of
progression and community. Of course, among microtransaction-heavy games there
are those that are more frustrating and exploitative. What I'm primarily
playing is the game in question in the article, Dragalia Lost (DL), and I've
had a pretty positive experience in the free-to-play and dolphin-friendliness
monetization model of the game. Monetary purchases are typically priced out of
the range of people who have little discretionary spending, and spending more
money gives diminishing returns. It might be troublesome for someone with poor
control, but for me I get as much of a kick calculating expected values of
their different virtual goods on sale (and end up not buying them anyway) as
playing the game itself.

------
rkangel
There is a flipside to this. In the last few months I have started playing two
new games - Apex Legends and Rainbow 6: Siege. Total cost for those two games
is £8.50. They are both supported by microtransactions for cosmetics, leading
to no cost for Apex, and a low price for R6 (which is admittedly also a 4 year
old game).

As someone who has gone from a significant income to a non-existent one due to
founding a company, I quite like that my gaming is subsidised by those who are
willing to spend lots of money on cosmetics.

~~~
thanatos_dem
Don’t you need to pay to unlock characters in Rainbow 6? Not sure that counts
as cosmetic. Definitely seems like paywalling game content.

~~~
rkangel
Yes, did oversimplify the situation. Both Apex and Rainbow have additional
characters that aren't initially unlocked. In both cases, they can be unlocked
through a currency earned in game, and you don't have to pay cash.

Apex launched with 6 unlocked and 2 locked. After a couple of weeks of play I
almost have 1 more unlocked.

R6 you start with none, but can get the 'original' 20 operators unlocked
pretty quickly (~15 hours of play). There are another 40 or so that take much
more 'renown' to unlock, and I may spend some cash on some of them if I
continue to play the game. There is enough learning at the moment that I feel
no need for that.

The result is I think a beneficial incentive. It's not '£50 whether good or
bad, 5 hours or 100 hours' classic purchase model, the profits there are a
result of marketing as much as game quality. Instead it's 'low or no barrier
to entry, and money will only continue to come in if I continue to be engaged
with the game'. I may end up spending more money on a game (over time), than I
would compared to a purchase price, but that will only be on games that are
rewarding me for a decent duration.

To me, this means developers are incentivised to make engaging, interesting
games that are worthwhile in the long term!

------
Razengan
Somewhat ironic, considering that I just saw their own 3DS Badge Arcade, which
costs $1.00 for 5 plays of a highly luck-dependent claw machine game, to win
icons that you can decorate the home screen with (and sometimes custom
themes.)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Badge_Arcade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Badge_Arcade)

~~~
ntkachov
As someone who played a lot of that game I can tell you it was not luck
dependent at all. Entirely skill based, there was even a daily practice mode
which would net you free plays. If the claw grabbed the piece it wouldn't drop
it unless it got to the end. Most boards could easily be done with 5 plays.

Nintendo has kept scummy micro transactions to a minimum for as long as I can
remember. Even Pokemon Picross had a maximum spend on micro transactions
(after $40, any further premium currency was free)

~~~
Razengan
The first and only time I tried it, 3 of my 5 free plays resulted in the claw
dropping the better badges after picking them up, before reaching the end.

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/Zu4cBe](https://outline.com/Zu4cBe)

------
Cypher
Also get rid of ads that get kids to click on them as they play...

------
goalieca
People complained about Mario run costing 10$ for the complete game. Quite
frankly, i enjoyed it a lot and feel that 10$ was a good price and there was
no grinding or waiting. It was focused on fun. But i think people are just not
used to paying for phone games.

------
snarfy
“Nintendo is not interested in making a large amount of revenue from a single
smartphone game,” one CyberAgent official said. “If we managed the game alone,
we would have made a lot more.”

Yes, they would have made more, at the expense of the entire industry.

~~~
EdgarVerona
When we see a statement like the one that CyberAgent official made, I can't
help but think of the Banality of Evil. We're so focused as a society on
economic growth - and surely, these employees have financial targets and
objectives they've been given that add to that on a personal level for them -
that thinking about the ethical implications of an exploitative business model
seems unnecessary, and even foolish. "There's no time for that," one might
say, or "that's not under the jurisdiction of my job title."

Well, bad news: it's not under the jurisdiction of _anyone 's_ job title. And
not considering it brings us to... well, where we are today.

------
el_cujo
I'd be much more willing to pay $10 for something that resembles an actual
game than get some branded gacha crap that's free to download but really has
no gameplay beyond being a slot machine that doesn't put out money. Its hard
for a lot of people to fathom that those types of games actually make a lot of
money. Even for something like Pokemon Go, which in my opinion is pretty
playable without paying money, I have two friends who put over $100 into the
game. Microtransactions prey on people who lack self-control, I guess I'm just
lucky I'm not predisposed to that kind of thing.

~~~
Aissen
Nintendo tried it both ways. FireEmblem Heroes, micro-transaction (gachapon)
based, made more money than Super Mario Run ($10, one time only buy).

I'm amazed that they are still very careful with their experimentations, and
not switching everything to the free-to-play model. Let's hope they continue
this way.

------
EdgarVerona
Great to hear. So are they going to start by removing slot machine
microtransactions from games like Fire Emblem Heroes?

I would love to see big, AAA studios step forward and be brave enough to say
that variable ratio schedule-based microtransactions are morally
objectionable, and that - even if they've used them before - they have changed
their minds and are no longer willing to normalize the practice in the
industry. But then they have to put their money where their mouth is and
actually stop using it.

(To note, thanks to the paywall I can't actually read this article. I read
another site's summary of it. So if they _are_ removing variable ratio
schedule microtransactions from Fire Emblem Heroes and other games that they
control, good on them!)

Here's a telling quote from the summary I read:

“Nintendo is not interested in making a large amount of revenue from a single
smartphone game,” an official at CyberAgent told the Journal. “If we managed
the game alone, we would have made a lot more.”

THAT speaks to the heart of the conflict that exists in the industry. There
are some people who genuinely don't see the use of variable ratio schedules in
microtransactions as ethically compromising, and see not using them as
"leaving money on the table." It is this attitude that we need to be aware of:
not just as consumers, but as creators of products. Software engineers,
designers, producers: we need to think carefully about how the products we
make can affect people, and how it can harm them. Creating a product cannot
just be about maximizing profit. Software Engineers, at the very least, are
bound by a duty to think about and attempt to mitigate the harm brought about
by their creation. (See IEEE and ACM code of ethics) "If we managed the game
alone, we would have made a lot more" makes me glad that they didn't manage
the game alone. It implies that no one in that company is asking themselves
about their ethical duties as the creator of a system designed to take
advantage of common human psychological weaknesses.

When we boil the question of variable ratio schedule microtransactions down to
just "did we leave money on the table," we are saying something about what we
picture as being our duty to those affected by our products. And it's not a
pretty statement, even if it is unintentional. I'm sure that the people who
made that statement don't consider themselves to be "bad people," and I won't
even go so far as to say that they are "bad people:" but it does make me think
of Hannah Arendt and "The Banality of Evil." It's very easy to get so caught
up in what you're assigned to do, what your business/organizational/state
goals are, that you lose sight of your other ethical duties.

Doing what's right isn't about justifying whatever you can think to create, or
even whatever people won't happen to notice or complain about (i.e. what you
can get away with). It's about doing an honest evaluation of the ways in which
the products you make can hurt people. It's about expressing some level of
empathy - thinking seriously and honestly about how you would feel and what
would happen to you if you were one of the people that were to fall into
harmful cycles that the product encourages. And it's about accepting that -
even if you believe that the person falling into it had a "choice," that you
were intentionally injecting yourself into and influencing that choice through
techniques that we as a species know to be psychologically manipulative. (and
indeed, we know they are effective as tools of psychological manipulation
because if we didn't, we wouldn't be using them)

~~~
goodroot
This is a wonderful post. Video games are my favourite hobby, and I still love
them even as I get older. The more knowledge the general public has on the
harm of these methodologies, the better.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/nintendo-mobile-
microtr...](https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/nintendo-mobile-
microtransactions-1203156557/), which points to this.

