SuperData’s new report suggests multiplayer console gamers are more susceptible to DLC and RMT than ever

Gamers talk a big talk about horse armor DLC and pay-to-win and the evils of cash shops, but y’all keep buying anyway.

That’s according to gaming research analysis firm SuperData, which today released an excerpt from its pricey report on digital console revenue for 2017. More than half of all digital console revenue this year, the firm says, will come from “additional content” like DLC and cash-shop microtransactions. That number is half again as high for the top-earning console games from the last few years.

Fully “39% of first-year additional content revenue for all titles is made in the first 3-to-6 months, leaving game publishers with a tight time frame to release new content,” argues SuperData. “Digital console consumers are hungry for more content as soon as they are done with the core gameplay. Most single player games have a gameplay timeframe between 10-to-40 hours within their single-player mode. It is not hard to see why over a third of console players believe that publishers should release content every 3-to-6 months. Over a fourth of them believe additional content should be released at least once a month. Publishers are warned to be wary of releasing content too close to the release date, since consumers see that tactic as profiting off content that should otherwise have been released with the full game.”

Intriguingly, microtransactions in single-player games don’t have this same pull. By way of example, SuperData points to Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, whose players balked at money grabs.

“The release of Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed Syndicate has earned $5 million in microtransactions, a fraction of what properly-employed microtransaction models can return. Assassin’s Creed’s fans cite frustration at this ‘money grab’ and expect to be able to progress through the core gameplay without paying. The lack of need for social currency when playing single player games makes vanity items and temporary boost items an unattractive proposition.”

Source: SuperData
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Code of Conduct | Edit Your Profile | Commenting FAQ | Badge Reclamation | Badge Key

LEAVE A COMMENT

24 Comments on "SuperData’s new report suggests multiplayer console gamers are more susceptible to DLC and RMT than ever"

Subscribe to:
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most liked
Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Console games can be purchased on sale or full retail, just like PC. Both formats have excellent, average and bad games. Can wait on console to release consolidated versions, with all the DLCs.

Impulse buying fuels “overpricing” as much as anything,

But yes, overall, seems console players are willing to pay more per game and not take the attitude of buying someone’s opus on Steam for $3. PC players think they are more thrifty, but hundreds of unplayed games on their accounts is not prudent.

“But, it is in sale!”

Still means you spent the money on unused items. Whoops. It is cyber hoarding,

*statement pointed at the PC Master Race crowd*

Reader
Tithian

If a console player is forced to pay 50-60$ for single player games that last maybe 10 hours, then you can bet he won’t think much of throwing 10-20$ to his favorite online game (usually F2P) that has more than likely provided more hours of entertainment.

On PC people are more reluctant to pay because (a) people torrent shit all the time and (b) even if they don’t torrent, they pay 5$ for a full title during a Steam sale.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

I’m not sure if the way I handle it is common, but:

– I usually only purchase a single-player game together with all its DLC, either by purchasing it together with some kind of season pass that guarantees I will get all current and future DLC, or else by waiting until all DLC has been published and the dev moved to something else; almost every game I have in my Steam account without its full complement of DLC is something I got either for free or else as part of a package or bundle.

– But, I refuse to pay for that package of game+DLC anything more than I would pay for a game without DLC. So, if the premium version that includes all current and future DLC is even a cent above the usual $60 price tag, I’m not getting it no matter how much I want to play the game. And if I waited until the game stopped getting DLC in order to get them all at once, then I will only purchase it if I can get the game plus all DLC for roughly the same price a similarly old game that never had DLC costs.

The end result is that having paid DLC for single player games typically makes the dev/publisher get less money from me, and later in the game cycle to boot; I tend to only purchase at launch, and only ever pay full price for, games that won’t have paid-for DLC.

Of note: I don’t care in the least about which game is “hot” or new; in fact, even games I purchase at launch I will usually only play one or two months down the line, after the dev has had the chance to iron out any bugs that crept into the release. So waiting a couple years to purchase a game isn’t much of a bother to me.

Reader
Dug From The Earth

Well that certainly explains marvel heroes big FU to its PC player base as of late.

Reader
Danny Smith

I imagine its more likely the kids who grew up with it as the norm now have their own disposable income.

Thanks horse armour.

Karma_Mule
Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
Karma_Mule

‘Susceptible’ or ‘Prone’?

Reader

More like weak willed.

Estranged
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Estranged

Yeah, PC players with their Steam garage full of unused toys are better consumers.

Reader
Fred Douglas

I’ve bought things for multiplayer and single player games. I honestly think cash shop QQing is just a proxy issue for not liking the gameplay. If a game offers compelling day to day play and offers cosmetic items in a cash shop, there is no issue for me.

Reader
Sunken Visions

The people buying aren’t the people complaining. Per usual, anyone not taking advantage of the majorities stupidity is going to suffer. Nice guys finish last, because the vast majority of the world is divided into asshats and idiots.

Reader
Connor

Depends on who you ask. Some guys from EA did a presentation about RMT a few years back in regards to Battlefield Heroes and that other free to play Battlefield game they had running. They ran the numbers against the accounts and they found that the people who complained the most about RMT weapons, on average, spent exponentially more than the rest of the community.

Reader
Patreon Donor
Veldan

This deserves more thumbs up

Reader
Melissa McDonald

Xbox One X is going to be essentially a “console Windows PC”, and it’s going to be a damn capable one, offering true 4K gaming as well as 4K Blu Ray support. We may be seeing a coming tsunami where consoles take an even greater bite out of PC gaming by becoming, essentially, PCs.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
zeko_rena

I will believe its “true 4K gaming” when I see it
Any news on VR support for the Xbox One X?

I suppose it still won’t support most USB devices such as wheels either you will have to buy “special Xbox One X” peripherals, why can I still not use my Logitech G27..

I am guessing it will still have an online subscription to be able to play online as well, plus still having more expensive games

Last I heard PC was back on the up in terms of gaming numbers, people were finally starting to wake up, I hope that has not / will not change with the launch of the Xbox One X

Line
Reader
Line

In the end, the console market as we know it is just dying.
It’s been years, and it continues losing market shares, at a frightening rate sometimes (Japan has been decimated by mobile for a while, and it’s only accelerating).

The XOX is just here to bring back some hardcore players into the Xbox ecosystem, which is the big loser of the gen.
But it’s never going to be the one to woo the casual market, it’s a high end console.
Just another PC-like experience that may or may not be a good deal at one point, before going right back to where it was.

It’s probably a good thing for Microsoft that the market is just drifting towards a single platform made by many different companies… their OS systems certainly crushed the competition and will keep them relevant on that point.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

They were essentially PC’s at the start of this generation, especially since both Xbone and PS4 are using x86 chips that make porting easy.

As for the “true 4K”, that’s already proving bullshit. Yeah, Forza looks great (it always does!) and hits that target, but all the third party AAA games used checkerboard rendering with upscaling. It’s a bit embarassing given how hard they pushed the “TRUE 4K” angle, especially since that’s the same type of solution that exists and is being used on the PS4 Pro, which is cheaper, already out, and already has a mixture of native 4K first/third party games as well as plenty that use checkerboard etc. to hit the 4K upscale target.

Consoles aren’t “taking a bite” out of PC at all, the platforms are pretty well defined. The console market is getting a greater diversity of software this generation (MMO’s everywhere!), which is expansion some genre’s markets, and the normal growth of respective platforms is happening, but they’re not necessarily eating each others lunches.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

I have to respectfully disagree with some of your points. For starters the Xbox One X is quite a bit more powerful than the PS4 Pro, which oddly enough doesn’t support the format Sony invented, in its next iteration (4K Blu Ray).
Just this week they published the list of 4K resolution games for Xbox One X. The community at large polices claims like this. If you are going to tell me you’ve thoroughly researched how all these titles are rendering in 4K (after allowing Forza had done it), I would still be skeptical that you had done so. I’ll keep it civil and just stop there.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/xbox-one-x-4k-resolution-list/

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

Gah, lost much of my post but…

Given how hard Microsoft has pushed “TRUE 4K” prior to the XboneX reveal, the fact that the three AAA titles they showed off only featured one hitting native 4K was telling. Forza was the only one (and with plenty of overhead to allow them to add more post processing effects or enhance settings elsewhere, to boot!), both Assassin’s Creed and Anthem were sub-4K, using checkerboard rendering to upscale to 4K without tons of jaggies etc., and I believe both also feature dynamic resolutions. Dynamic resolution is cheating, if we’re talking about “true native” resolutions, but I love the tech and am thrilled to see more games adopting it to help address framerate issues during heavy loads.

As for that list, it doesn’t differentiate between native and upscaled 4K. As you can see, AC is on that list as a third party game, but they’ve already looked at the game as it was shown off at E3 and I believe it’s rendering natively at 1440p (2K).

There’s a difference (although not huge, thanks to great tech like checkerboard rendering and a lot of the anti aliasing options etc.) between true, native 4K resolutions like Microsoft was pushing hard leading up to the XboneX reveal, and sub-4K native games using techniques to upscale mostly cleanly to 4K.

Because right now, it’s looking like the XboneX is largely going to be similar to the PS4 Pro in that regard – a large group of third party games supporting the newer hardware with higher resolutions, but still sub-4K native, and a smaller chunk of native 4K games as well (PS4 Pro already has a number of them). That’s well and good, but unless Microsoft can get more games running at a native 4K on their hardware, there’s little reason to justify the additional expense for the XboneX over the PS4 Pro if your primary concern is 4K gaming. If they’re both featuring nearly identical native resolutions, why spend more?

Reader
Sally Bowls

I am not a consoler so was surprised and horrified at an article praising a game for not being real/true/epeen 4K pm the current XBX because that meant it played the same on the older versions of XBox. I thought the new XB is clearly better hardware than the new PS. Certainly, XB is the choice for non-hardcore gamers since the XB costs about the same as a 4KBR player. And while you don’t really need either, you get to check off two items for one impulse purchase.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Greaterdivinity

I mean, it’s the same game regardless of if you play it on the OG hardware this gen or the mid-point hardware refreshes. The only changes are cosmetic – higher native resolutions, possibly higher framerate options, more graphical goodies etc.

XboneX has more raw power than the PS4 Pro, MOAR TERAFLOPS (WHAT’S A TERAFLOP?!), just like the PS4 had the edge over the Xbone in terms of raw power. But for 4K TV owners, it’s not going to be a dramatic difference between them, just like for 1080p TV owners it’s not a dramatic difference between PS4 and Xbone OG hardware. Either way, you’re going to get limited native 4K support on either console, but thankfully the upscaling tech they’re both employing is pretty great, and delivers great results for folks with 4K TV’s, and for the games/TV’s that support stuff like supersampling down from 4K/sub-4K down to 1080p or stuff like higher framerates/more graphical goodies at 1080p native (or at least stabilized performance), you’re going to get solid experiences on both as well. It’s just that again, like initially this generation, XboneX is going to retail at a higher base price than Ps4 Pro (as the Xbone initially retailed for a higher price than PS4).

miol
Reader
miol

If you like bondage and W10 going the same restrictive direction so you won’t have that much of a choice, sure! ;P

Reader
Melissa McDonald

you had me at “bondage” ROFL

ceder
Reader
ceder

Intriguingly, microtransactions in single-player games don’t have this same pull. By way of example, SuperData points to Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, whose players balked at money grabs.

I would say that’s because of peers having/showing off/wanting to brag/feel special in relation to others. Single player doesn’t really drive/influence that as readily.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Kickstarter Donor
camelotcrusade

Right? Add-ons for single-player are most popular when they extend gameplay. I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess the ROI on maps and content packs is a lower than the comparably miniscule effort it takes to make a hot dog sword you can sell to (and for) annoying people.

wpDiscuz