Gears 5 "ahead of the industry" on monetising without loot boxes

From "The developer behind Gears 5 believes the game will set a trend in how AAA games monetise players after launch.

Following a demonstration of the expanded Horde mode at Gamescom today, The Coalition's Ryan Cleven was asked whether the game would include microtransactions."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Spurg31d ago (Edited 31d ago )

Monetizing should even be a thing. It feeds the need for people to spend especially younger kids who would buy stuff cosmetics just to show off that they have the brand new gears. If it is earnable without any significant grind then that's fine but the fact that it's purchasable doesn't sit well with me.

RabbitFly31d ago

Monetization should not be a thing? At all?

You do realize how little sense that makes?

How are developer supposed to make games if they cannot generate an income?

VenomUK31d ago (Edited 31d ago )

So Microsoft's new name for micro-transactions (MTX) is, and I quote, "PLAYER-FRIENDLY PURCHASE SYSTEMS"!

Stone the crows, just call a spade a spade. And, if they're that 'player friendly' they'd be free.

Kitt9231d ago

The old fashioned way where you know they make a game sell it make their money back and there you go

RosweeSon31d ago

Do they give the games away?

Stanjara31d ago

Who are you trolling? We are talking about in game purchases. You already payed for the game, through subscription model or normal 60$. So now publishers want to make in game incentives for you to spend additional money for cosmetics and gear.

Guess that doesn't bother you. EA4life

shuvam0931d ago

You know very well what he meant...
Monetization shouldn't be a thing in full-priced games...

sampsonon31d ago (Edited 31d ago )

isn't that what the $60 price tag is for? make it a FPS or a payed game. not both.

it's bloody greedy.

zodiac90931d ago

@RabbitFly By making a GOOD solid game out the gate??? Companies like Activision, EA, Take 2 and Epic, have people like you believing that it is impossible for a game to launch these days WITHOUT some form of DLC, lootbox, or microtransactions in store at some point. When in reality a game can do JUST fine, without these scummy practices.

CrimsonWing6931d ago

You do realize games were successful without monetization before, right?

Fluttershy7731d ago

Is he saying they shouldn't make money from the game? No! You understood what he said, but still you twisted it. And the reason you did it is because you can't defend this piece of crap, so next you'll talk about how modern games needs to monetize as much as they can, and how that's the nature of capitalism... But at the end of the day is just smoke screen and b-sht; and you can call it Surprise Boxes, Player Friendly Purchase Systems or WeLoveYouGuysGiveUsyourMoney at the end of the day you can't hide the fact that these are disgusting MicroTransactions and that I just don't want them in my games.

darren_poolies31d ago

Yeah, I don't think people understand that the price of games hasn't risen with inflation. And the fact that most games make all their sales in the first few weeks, and multiplayer games or GaaS have hefty ongoing costs required to support the game for several years after release.

So we either have way more expensive games or we have *optional* microtransactions. I know which I'd rather have.

UltraNova30d ago

The Real Surprise Mechanics ® MS.

Too soon?

Brave_Losers_Unite30d ago

You are ridiculous and probably 15 years old.

lnfiniteLoop30d ago

"How are developer supposed to make games if they cannot generate an income?"

thought the whole idea of producing a product that people wanted and then selling it generated an income... didnt know if you sold a million or two for say £70 each and not making an income... you need to change your job and give up... if you making nothing...

Obscure_Observer30d ago


"Yeah, I don't think people understand that the price of games hasn't risen with inflation. And the fact that most games make all their sales in the first few weeks, and multiplayer games or GaaS have hefty ongoing costs required to support the game for several years after release.

So we either have way more expensive games or we have *optional* microtransactions. I know which I'd rather have."

Perfect! I feel the same way.

Livingthedream30d ago

Ok so if we go back to the old model, the. Once you purchase a game theres no improvements or updates, or extra skins etc. I rarely purchase extra content; however, I would prefer the option to purchase the item outright then spend time unlocking loot boxes. The coalition offered soooo much support to gears 4 including free maps, that's unheard of now a days so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Ruegrong30d ago

If a game company can't make a profit from selling games, they would not be in the business of selling games!
Don't believe in them saying "it's the only way to make a profit". There was once upon a time where they didn't sell microtransactions, and still profited. Stop being so naive!!

milohighclub30d ago

If it's on the disk it should be included in the price. If they do EXTRA work then it's fair to charge reasonable prices. Dont hold cut content to sell later, dont pull scummy practices on customers and tbh all else is fair game. Just be fair.

RabbitFly30d ago

Oh wow. So many replies, and you all are missing the point.

Selling a game for $60 is monetizing too. I know that is not what he meant, but that was the whole point.

You guys are acting like the very idea of monetization is evil, but how is an industry supposed to work without generating income.

Then you will say, they can monetize the initial purchase, but nothing beyond that. I say ok, that means less revenue, which leads to smaller budgets and therefore less content.

Budgets are based on projected earnings. A Company cannot spend money without justifying a potential revenue. There just is no way around this fact.

I can guarantee you all that all games with mts had their budget increased due to it and created more content for everyone because of it.

The industry can decide that it wants to do things differently, but that does not change the facts of how a business has to operate to justify its existence.

darthv7230d ago

My son plays team fortress two on his PC, and that game is really old (by today's standards), and it has these in game cosmetics that you pay real $ for. I think he's nuts but its his $ so it is what it is. He buys the steam cards and uses the $ to decorate his character.

darren_poolies30d ago


Yeah lets just ignore the fact that games are phenomenally more expensive to make these days.

Rachel_Alucard30d ago

*how are publishers supposed to beat last years quota if they cannot abuse a loophole?

badz14930d ago


Team Fortress 2 is a F2P game. sure it didn't started as one but it has been F2P for a good couple of years now. please don't compare a F2P game with a full priced $60 game just to make a point to defend MT in full priced games

AlexMuncatchy30d ago

I'm being dead serious in asking this question: how old are you?

Jaces30d ago

You can't be serious? That's the biggest load of horse shit I've heard. Games have been around for decades and all started without monetization, and guess what? They ALL flourished into the giants we see today with PC, Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, etc...The whole "how will the developers ever live day to day without microtransactions" excuse is corporate BS! You realize they don't even see that money, right? That all goes to the big wigs up top in the form of bonuses to pad their thrones.

Wake up, you're being played like a damn fiddle.

AmUnRa30d ago

I cant believe what....are you being serious??🙄

IamTylerDurden130d ago

Coming from the company that put loot boxes in their last game..

This is just another name for microtransaction.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 30d ago
RosweeSon31d ago

Yeah bring back the days you unlocked extra modes and characters with skills and persistence rather than coins points and actual money.

Zabatsu230d ago

This. So much. Its so rare nowadays. What I find funny about it, is how much devs actually believe this too, but they dont dare to stick out their heads and say it. Instead they eventually lash out on gamers giving them hate for voicing what should be their own opinions.

timotim30d ago

Cant you still do that though? Honest question. I mean, wouldn't this be for those only that want to speed up what they acquire?

30d ago
343_Guilty_Spark30d ago

If someone wants to buy optional content and it helps the devs with their increasingly expensive development cycles then why shouldn't that option exist?

I have never had a problem with paid DLC because I never buy it, unless it's something like Hearthstone packs.

And as long as the system for grinding things for free is fair and said system doesn't have a pay to win component I'm fine.

Let capitalism do its thing.

DaDrunkenJester30d ago

But can still do that... you earn in game currency and upgrade materials by playing the game. Some unlocks are provided by hitting milestones as well in campaign, difficulty, Escape, etc... or if you dont want to play to unlock, you just buy the skin you want.

neutralgamer199230d ago


try playing the latest assassin creed and you will find out how if you don't plan on buying the boosters than your experience with the game won't be as good since there are a lot of boring/repetitive side quest that the player must do in order to do main story missions

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 30d ago
GottaBjimmyb30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

Of course there should be monetization, selling the game at a cost is monetization. The majority on this site's views on MTs are really stupid. Just don't buy them if you don't want them. How is potentially free maps, dlc, content, etc not a better option than 4 $15 DLC packs every 2 months?

Alternatively, are you suggesting you would prefer 60% of games not exist or be worse because they cannot monetize it? You guys act like games are the only industry where they have to make sure they make a profit. What do you think happens when a game makes no money? Or how do you think minimizing income helps a game be better? Or how MTs hurt you if you don't like them? (Even if you do not buy them, you benefit)

There are bad MTs and ones that are fine, blankets whining just seems stupid.

IMO cosmetics are not an issue, it literally is an option to invest more in a game you like if you want to, or benefit from those who do if you choose not to.

GottaBjimmyb30d ago

Benefits of MT model:
-People can buy as little or as much as they want
-Most devs include all new maps, weapons and modes that previously would have been split between those who bought DLC and those who didn't
-In many cases allows even somewhat high-end games becomes completely free to enter with no competitive disadvantage
-Allows devs to increase revenue and create continued content to allow them to keep devs employed between projects AND make bigger/better games potentially.

-pay to win (rare now)

RabbitFly30d ago

You get it. But these people think games should be created for the good of mankind, with no consideration for why things are like they are.

Rachel_Alucard30d ago (Edited 30d ago )


That's not what happens in reality if Treyarch and Blops 4 is any indicator. They just make it worse. You still had a season pass, loot boxes, a battlepass, and weapons in lootboxes, and they treat their employees like fodder all the same. Money is fine, but too much money corrupts and MTs only worsen it. I would rather a game release finished with no updates aside from bug fixes then needing to be constantly updated because that eats up peoples time and you don't get that back.

rainslacker30d ago

The typical big MP only game will have a production budget of about 40-50 million dollars and a marketing budget of 50-100 million....often subsidized by a console maker.

That means around a $150 total budget to make a game.

A game that sells 5 million copies in the first month will bring in 300 million in revenue....effectively doubling the return put into production. The general net revenue after digital storefront costs or retail distribution is factored in will be 210 million. Since most of the big games sell more than 5 million, there is more profit in it after that. A game that sells 10 million is going to bring in 420 million. So on and so forth.

That is a profit, and it's disingenuous to say that MT are needed to bring new games, when every year, publishers are posting up to a billion or more in revenue, and much of it's profit. Half a billion in production costs a year vs a billion in revenue....but they need MT?

Sorry, the numbers don't match up to support that MT are required. It's maximizing profits. There is no reason to hide it, and think that gamers are so stupid that they will support them just because they want them to keep making games.

Swiftfox30d ago

Except game-play is altered to accommodate and incentivize the micro-transactions. Developers will slow progression to a crawl and elongate the time between rewards to ensure micro-transactions remain enticing. Before it might have taken you a few hours of play to unlock a skin, but now it takes a few hours to unlock a coin--and you need 10 to get the skin without real world money. Proof of this can be found in EA's battlefront 2. The gameplay was so hinged on the real money store, the developers had to decrease the time to rewards once the store was shut down. Microtransactions are not "just an option" players can ignore as every second of play pushes the user to spend real money.

derektweed130d ago

I remember in COD4:MW when the first map pack came out, I think it was £15 or so for 4 maps, byut if your partied up with someone who had the map pack and you didn't, the rotation would still choose the new maps and kick the player who didn't have them.

That was bad

GottaBjimmyb30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

@rachel "That's not what happens in reality if Treyarch and Blops 4 is any indicator."

Why would we use BO4 as the indicator, because it fits your argument? Why did you use BO4 instead of the new COD releasing?

Also, why didn't you use, PUBG, Rainbow six siege, Fortnite, overwatch, Gear of war, etc? Might it be because almost every game you could have mentioned defeats your point?

@Rain "The typical big MP only game will have a production budget of about 40-50 million dollars and a marketing budget of 50-100 million....often subsidized by a console maker."

Yea because distribution, retailer (online or store) cuts, back-end upkeep, Continued development budget (for staff to stay on and keep making things), Taxes and hundreds of other expenses don't exist.... Not to mention, no, most games do not sell 5 million, no clue where you got that idea from, but it clearly shows you are an absolute moron. A game that makes profit is required because it subsidizes the ones that don't, the ones that never release of get cancelled, and subsidizes the studio expanding and increasing the budget for their game.

You example basically assumes we are talking about the biggest budget highest selling games of the gen.

You also assume every game sold is sold at full price, When if you look at the list above as an example, almost all of them have been on sale for years for $40 or less frequently or at all times.

@swift "Developers will slow progression to a crawl and elongate the time between rewards to ensure micro-transactions remain enticing. Before it might have taken you a few hours of play to unlock a skin, but now it takes a few hours to unlock a coin--and you need 10 to get the skin without real world money."

Are you really suggesting that having to play a game more is now a massive negative? Play games you enjoy then....They are skins, not "Game Altering" and I can prove it. If you remove the skins all-together, the ACTUAL gameplay would still be the same, any MT where that is true, is perfectly fine IMO.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 30d ago
DaDrunkenJester30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

If the game is not heavily supported after launch then no MT's. If they are adding free maps, updates, content, skins for years then I don't have an issue with them making additional revenue to pay for the continued support.

A lot of people's argument seems to be that games were successful before MT's, which is true. But what they fail to realize is that games are often supported for way longer now then they were before. Or even online games before MT's would then sell you $15 map and skin packs that you're forced to buy to keep up with your friends. That old way segregated players who could and couldnt pay for new content. Then before DLC you just got the game you got, no additional content or support. Shit, back in the day they couldnt even patch out bugs.

It's a different industry and Gears offers so much base content already that if they want to monetize some skins to pay for all the maps they will bring over the next few years then I'm fine with that. I'm just glad they removed loot boxes

DaDrunkenJester30d ago

There are also two separate systems for gaining content: an unlockable customisation system called Tour of Duty, and then Supply where players get free content just for playing the game. The two content pools are separate.

Meanwhile, heroes will be both earnable and purchasable.

343_Guilty_Spark30d ago

People that spend make personal choices to do so.

Your argument is very poor

rainslacker30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

I can't believe what I'm reading from the quotes in this article.

It's innovative to remove loot boxes, and just use the same monetization process that has been around for years, going all the way back to last gen. Not every dev/pub is doing loot boxes, and many games never implemented them and just stuck to regular MT. I guess games that never bothered to add them in the first place are so far in the future, that it's on the level of Asimov level sci-fi.

Did people forget we complained about those things last gen as well?

This is more evidence of my belief that loot boxes are being used to legitimize the regular MT that we've seen for years but have been complaining about. Gamers are accepting the lesser of two evils, because hey, at least its not loot boxes.

Note to any developer. It's not innovative to simply go back to the old ways because you want to avoid the controversy that comes with loot boxes.

neutralgamer199230d ago

am i missing something did god of war, spiderman or horizon included MT? what about witcher 3?

so let's not act like gears 5 is doing something so rare when others have done it and continue to do it

sea of thieves has MT doesn't it?

we just need these to go away in general especially in single player games

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 30d ago
isarai31d ago

Why is it being talked about like its a feature we want?

robtion31d ago

Leading the way in innovative new gameplay mechanics? Nope. In impressive new ai or technical achievements? Nope. In monetising and squeezing more $ out of consumers? Check!
Not something to brag about.

victorMaje31d ago

Get ready for the new kind of game designer, the MicroTransaction Designer...disgusting.

spicelicka30d ago

Well being the greatest hardcore TPS multiplayer game is something to brag about, but it doesn't need to be said.

30d ago
Fluttershy7731d ago

Apparently the problem was that the industry used to scam your money with boxes of worthless crap, but now, now they've found new ways to scam money from you.
You want to progress faster than the rest of the players? give us money
You want to look cool to show off on how much better you are at the game? give us money

Imortus_san31d ago

Or just play normally and dont spend money.

Cmv3830d ago

This isn't anything new. It's just microtransactions that aren't random it seems. If you hate to pay extra into a game, you'll hate this too. They just don't have random loot boxes.

rainslacker30d ago

They aren't doing anything new here. Many games used the same style of monetization. Buy in game currency which can be used to buy in game products. Sure, you can earn them in game. So innovative. That's never been done before.

These devs must think gamers are idiots to believe that going back to the old ways is innovative.

SolidGamerX30d ago

Because MS wants everyone to believe they monetize you better than everyone else. "Ahead of the industry" nope sounds like right in line with the rest of the industry actually.

Fluttershy7730d ago (Edited 30d ago )

Up Next We Have Revolver Digital's Newest Bleeding edge Technology innovation:.... LOOT BOXES!

rainslacker30d ago

They're saying they're innovative by going back to the things we complained about before loot boxes came around.

So innovative. I'm impressed.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 30d ago
PhoenixUp31d ago

Why you acting like it’s a good thing? Gamers already paid full price or discount for the game. Any additional purchases should be for DLC or GOTY editions

Kribwalker31d ago

the DLC is all free though, funded through people buying cosmetics with MTs. They did it with Halo and the support was amazing without having to spend an additional dime

Prince-Ali31d ago


Lostbytes30d ago

If i pay a premium for a game. I will never buy any cosmetic micro-transactions, period. (This goes for f2p also. If the if the DLC does not contain Playable/game changing content. Its not worth my money.) I would buy full fledged Add-on/expansions, But this funding Free DLC via MTX, is crap. This free stuff NEVER meets/exceeds the quality of a paid add-on. Adjust gamings price point to match inflation.

Kribwalker30d ago

if i had a choice, Free DLC and optional cosmetic MTs and no split of the player base, or all DLC is paid for (which is a MT in itself) and the user base is split, i would take optional cosmetics every time

Halo 5’s MTs we’re premium. They gave out multiple game modes and more then 16 maps, for free, because of optional cosmetic purchases. I got it all for free, as did every other user, so there was no haves and have nots splits in MP. Player base stayed big.

Same thing happened with Uncharted and The last of us, free DLC, but those MTs were pay to win somewhat

Oathbreaker31d ago

There was a time when both DLC and GOTY editions were also taboo lol. The new thing to cry about now is Microtransactions without knowing all the details.

timotim30d ago

Exactly. I have no problem with MTs if it keeps the community together and makes the DLC free. This is what happened with Halo 5. No more paid map packs that split the userbase. The entire community got everything at the same time.

Imortus_san31d ago (Edited 31d ago )

DLC will be free.

timotim30d ago

Im not a fan of paid DLC at all. That splits your users base between those who have paid for the DLC vs those who have not. This means only those who have paid will be grouped together for things like map packs but if you are in a party split between those with the DLC and those that dont have it, you will not be able to play on the new maps you just bought. I like this way batter because here, ALL DLC is free for the entire community, instead the devs are making addition money from OPTIONAL MTs which helps pay for the DLC and keeps the entire community together.

spicelicka30d ago

I think it's a good thing in comparison to most games in the industry.

mark_parch30d ago

to be fair if other people buying cosmetics means I get free dlc then I'm all for that. As long as there's nothing that's pay to win I'm not to fussed

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 30d ago
kohox31d ago

So the game has two or three currency's and you have hero's to buy with cash... sounds a lot like Battlefront 2, except in BF2 at least they give you all the hero's and you can only speed up leveling.