How Devil May Cry 5 Did Microtransactions Right

Devil May Cry 5 makes it so easy to not even look at its microtransactions.

Read Full Story >>
Nyxus4d ago

They still don't belong in a full price game.

execution172d ago

Fortnite microtransactions are expensive just for a skin or emote

jagermaster6192d ago

Fortnite sucks! I hope your kids spend all your money using your credit cards!

NeoGamer2322d ago


"Microtransactions" and "done right" should not be in the same sentence ever for a game that you pay for. If it is F2P I get it. But when I pay a cost to buy a game that is like telling me, "you bought the car without an engine, the engine is extra".

Forn2d ago (Edited 2d ago ) could look at it like any car that uses gas. Microtransactions being the gas. Or perhaps a better analogy is that microtransactions are turbo chargers 😝

wraith99992d ago

not really, its more like (in this case where its all optional cosmetics) you bought a car, but didnt get it with the premium paint job

DarXyde2d ago

If they're unobtrusive and people just want to use them to expedite their progress, who cares? My progress isn't hurt or enhanced by their inclusion, so it's such a nonissue.

Microtransactions are a part of the industry now. So I would say that not necessitating them is definitely done right. They're not going away.

If you really want to do away with them in a full priced game, then let a full priced game be a full priced game. By that, I mean, let's look at gen 6 consoles, the last generation without them. Those games were $50. Developers didn't need to sell nearly as much then to profit as they do now. So with that in mind, I wonder how much games would need to cost to keep the profitability consistent. People say things like, "the market is bigger now", but I might disagree; Japanese console market has contracted considerably and games are now being uniquely developed for each platform-- not necessarily by architecture, but performance differences and nuances features (e.g., VR or Switch).

That all being said, am I correct in suggesting you are okay with paying $80-120 (estimate) for your games instead of $60 + microtransactions that are so innocuous that you never know they're there? Where exactly are you personally willing to compromise? Because I don't think $60 with no other means of income on a game is fair to developers. And before you cite God of War as an example, Sony Santa Monica is not only a branch of the top grossing platform holder, but it's also not trying to pull itself out of the well the way Capcom is.

Nyxus2d ago

I bought the steelbook and paid 65€ for it (73$ USD).

DarXyde2d ago

In other words, the game, some extra content, and a premium casing for a $13 markup in price.

How does that hurt my argument?

Nyxus2d ago

Where does your estimate that games have to cost $80-120 come from?

DarXyde2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

For clarification, I never said games HAVE to cost this. Take it for what it is: an estimate.

The average PSOne game was apparently $800K-2M to make.

PS2 was $5-10M to develop.

For PS3, it is allegedly around $19-29M.

For PS4, you've got games pushing $60M and there are outliers like GTA ($270M). I cannot confirm if $60M is an average.

For an adjusted-for- inflation look at costs using a logarithmic metric...

Many games are multiplatform which really helps since architectures are similar.

Anyway, it's difficult to find the wholesale price of games in general, so it's hard to know how much developers make on each game shipped to stores. Even then, profitability is contingent upon budget. The cost is significantly greater and that is a consistent trend each generation. This tends to be because teams are getting larger and time takes longer.

So in my estimation, I would say a $20 minimum markup is extremely conservative and a doubling in price is to estimate if games development had doubled. When you consider that PS2 games cost $5-$10M on average and cost $50 at retail, assuming wholesale prices then scale with wholesale now, we'd be paying in the neighborhood of, what, $400-$600/ game? That's assuming the average PS4 game is $60M to develop. But it's also split between 3 platforms at least, no instruction booklets, and marketing is cheaper now since the internet is a big thing for that. All of these considerations are assuming the profitability is scaled to PS2-era games. Rather than trying to sell games for so much, there are digital offerings and accepting that games just need to sell to more people, which does move the profitability bar. So $120/game is still pretty conservative, but that's the absolute tail end of feasibility.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
ZeekQuattro4d ago

No it didn't. RE 2 did however as it didn't have them in the first place. Those are best left to free to play games.

DarkZane3d ago

Unlike what people believe, the core gameplay wasn't balanced to make people buy microtransactions. In fact, 100,000 orbs is nothing, you can literally get that in 1 minute via farming. You need about 12-13 millions orbs to get everything and you can farm that in 2-3 hours. The game is pretty generous with orbs.

100k might be a lot at the beginning of the game, but for endgame, it's a ridiculously small amount.

rand03d ago

I was thinking about buying this game, but now it’s dropped way down in my backlog to bargain bin. Didn’t know it had MT’s. There is no way to “do microtransactions right.”

rpvenom3d ago

I definitely understand your stance but I wouldn't discredit this game for being great because of the micro-transactions. The game is very good. Definitely worth playing. But I hear ya, at least some of us have the patience to wait, and take a stronger stance against MTs. I salute you sir.. and not sarcastically.

Lord_Sloth2d ago

You can buy extra red orbs and unlock things early. No need to do either of them though because the game dumps 20+k red orbs at you per mission. You'll be swimming in them forever.

maximumspidey2d ago

just say you weren't gonna get it. obviously you didn't care that much.

Show all comments (32)