On Turbine & Microtransactions

A post to The Lord of the Rings Online Forums reassures subscribers that Turbine is not planning on implementing real-money transactions into their Lord of the Rings MMOG, or presumably any of their current projects, responding to outcry over a job advertisement noticed by Massively that references "Turbine's micro-transaction-based in-game store." Without going into too much detail, they clarify that this is for a future game, rather than a current one: "We know the recent job listing has caused a bit of a stir, but please be aware that this posting is for an unannounced future project." Thanks Eurogamer.
View : : :
5.
 
Re: I'd hate to be...
Jan 6, 2009, 14:05
5.
Re: I'd hate to be... Jan 6, 2009, 14:05
Jan 6, 2009, 14:05
 
Why can't they say "We estimate having approximately 500,000 subscribers buying an average of $15 worth of items per month, growing at a rate..."? It's not like microtransactions necessarily result in your game losing money and failing, as plenty of games use such a model. Maybe there isn't a hugely successful one in the US, but they don't all crash and burn.

However, the real advantage of microtransactions is the ultimate limitation of a flat subscription fee. With a subscription, there's a low amount of money a player can realistically spend per month on the game. In something like WoW, you pay for the account, but you can't really spend more money. Sure, you could maybe get another account or two and run multiple characters at the same time, but there are some general limits on how well you can do that. But if you sell an item that increases earned XP by 50% for 6 hours for $1 (in a grind-heavy game), a really hardcore player might buy 2-3 (maybe 4 in extreme cases) a day for a character. Two a day for a month is $60.

Of course, at the other end you have people who buy nothing, but the goal would be to offer a good set of items at a good price so that you get at least X per player per month in sales.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
2.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
12.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
13.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
4.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
 5.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
 Re: I'd hate to be...
6.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
7.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
9.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
10.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009
11.
Jan 6, 2009Jan 6 2009