{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/28/2016 4:18:17 PM
8
Maybe the underlying reason for the move is that Ryan resisted the push to micro-transactions and this is part of an effort by Bungie to more fully commit to it. Activision has been touting in its investor relations pieces that its business model is focused on driving player engagement (addictive grinding). This is a summary Activision's business model as explained to investors in November 2015:
10: Talent, Technology and Institutionalized Processes Deliver High Quality Content
Metric: Audience Reach
20: High Quality Content Drives Engagement (I.e., games are addictive and grindy)
Metric: Time Spent
30: Engagement Drives Premium Recurring Player Investment (best euphemism ever for micro-transactions, in-app purchases and P2W elements)
Metric: ARPU (Note: This means average revenue per unit or per user)
40: Player Investment Drives Cash Flow and Re-Investment
Metric: Cash Flow
50: GOTO 10
This is a rehash of slide 14 of Activision's presentation for investors. Go look at it here:
[url]http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ACTI/1420295192x0x860155/9F8D523C-7E61-4443-91E1-EB3A7DDFC7F1/FINAL_ID_Presentation_-_Small.pdf[/url]
(Note: Destiny is listed next to Candy Crush. F-ING CANDY CRUSH!)
When I look at this model and consider what Destiny has done since launch, it seems to me that Destiny and thus Ryan may have been resisting it. Consider that most of the micro-transactions so far in Destiny have been cosmetic or at least have also been obtainable via gameplay. Also, the last few micro-content expansions have been free – the Haunted Mansion thing, Sparrow Racing and now the Couple's Crimson Massage or whatever the hell it's called.
If anything, Bungie's strategy for Destiny seems to have been slightly out of step with Activision's business model even though Activision seems to have become more focused on this model since the launch of Destiny. So I'm inclined to think that this change is more likely lead to more to manipulative grindiness, less major content, and more micro-transactions rather than a return to the more straight-forward game+2 DLC release cycle. Time will tell, I guess.
What is missing from Activision's strategy is the recognition that micro-transactions, P2W, grindiness will ultimately reduce the first goal which is audience reach. That is, the greater commitment that a game requires to complete in terms of time and money, the more it will- eventually - alienate more casual players and those without the budget or willingness to spend unlimited amounts of money. Destiny started out as a more traditional – buy the game, play the game, win the game – business model and has evolved to become more in line with Activision's "recurring premium player investment." To the extent that the "recurring premium player investment" has worked, it has done so in part due to the "bait and switch" nature of the change. Some of us casual started this game expecting 4 major releases, 8 DLCs over ten years – hoping and believing it could be as epic a franchise as Star Wars - and so have been willing to engage in "premium player investment" but there is a limit as to how long that will last. Activision seems to be ignoring this dynamic and it seems like the move from Ryan to Parson is more likely to result more grinding, micro-transactions, and general nickle-and-diming, not less.
English
-
Well said!
-
I'm wondering what leads you to believe that Ryan resisted them at all, and that now Parsons will embrace them. Parsons has been with Bungie since the Halo 2 days - it's not like he's Bobby Kotick's cousin.
-
Admittedly, it could be the opposite - the Bungie board could have thought Ryan went along too much with Activision's model and are hoping that Parsons will push back. The problem I see with this interpretation is that the contract between Activision and Bungie, as disclosed from Marty O'Donnell affair, gives Activision so much control and that control is so ... penetrating into Bungie that in effect makes Bungie almost a temporary subsidiary of Activision. But again, the contract that was disclosed was from several years ago and left so much open that it's probably been amended. So maybe I'm putting too much weight in what that contract said.
-
A board of directors is almost always ensconsed on the business side of things as they represent the stockholders, and not the consumer side. In fact, they have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, and can be sued if they don't do their job. While that doesn't mean they don't care about consumers, it's not who they represent. I'd have to look up who is on their board to get a clue.
-
I get that. It's a question of whether the "best thing" for Bungie's shareholders is to do what is in the long term best interest of Bungie and its major games like Destiny or is to comply with the terms of the contract with Activision which gives Activision a lot of control. This is well with the business judgement rule. As a player, I would prefer that Bungie focus on the long term success of Destiny and thus its own long term success. My concern is that it is too beholden to Activision to do that and instead is more focused on what goes into Activision's next 10-Q filing. But, alas, such is capitalism and it's only a video game.
-
Because Bungie's move to micro-transactions seems to have been a bit behind and less "committed" than Activision's stated business model and its other games. I'm saying it is possible interpretation but obviously I don't really know. We'll see soon enough.
-
I'm too lazy to type as much as you, but fully agree. I'm assuming you noticed that when the £30 spark packs became available they weren't mentioned by any bungie employee anywhere that I could see. Kinda backs up your opinions.
-
Bwahahah. Couples Crimson Massage I don't care who you are, that's funny right thar
