410°

Activision made a record $5.1 billion from microtransactions in 2021

Activision-Blizzard reported a new record all-time high of $5.1 billion in microtransaction and subscription revenue in 2021.

Read Full Story >>
tweaktown.com
phoenixwing847d ago

Well looks like the 70 billion will pay itself a lot faster than we think at this rate

SullysCigar847d ago

Tbf, this figure is revenue, not profit, so it's hard to gauge any new insight on that front - particularly given they've generated a similar figure for the past 6+ years.

lonewolf10847d ago

Also tbf this is just microtransactions, a lot would like to make that much off of their main games, sad but true how MT's are worth so much.

alb1899847d ago

Just Warzone makes profit of 5.2 millions every day....that alone is 1.9 billion in a year.

SullysCigar846d ago

^ That's right @alb1899 and you largely have the PlayStation community to thank for that.

Can you imagine if they ever decided to take it off PlayStation, how the figures would plummet?

darthv72846d ago

@sully, I wouldnt be proud of that sentiment. Given how people (on this site) feel about MT in general... that just says those PS users will spend $$ on anything without thinking it through.

SullysCigar846d ago

^ No pride implied, @darthv72, if anything I'm pointing out the flawed logic behind alb1899's perceivable pride relating to Warzone's profits.

Apparently COD's sales (and the associated microtransactions) are suddenly cause for celebration by some. Those same people enjoy the prospect of the franchise being pulled from Sony's platform.

The cognitive dissonance is delicious.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 846d ago
LucasRuinedChildhood847d ago

If they suddenly remove COD from PlayStation in 2024 (platform with highest sales and revenue), that revenue would go down by billions though.

Sonyslave3847d ago (Edited 847d ago )

Not by much tho the main bread winner is mobile games from king like candy crush and even call of duty mobile.

sparky77847d ago

Most of those gamers will just move to PC/Xbox hardcore COD gamers won't care about the platform they just don't want to be left behind.

esherwood847d ago

Man it’s crazy how much Mobil makes. Games that take 1/100th the effort to make making way more then AAA games. Sucks wish people would stop supporting micro transactions

LucasRuinedChildhood847d ago (Edited 847d ago )

@sparky77

By the end of 2024, there will probably be at least 60m PS5s. You wouldn't realistically be able to get most people to switch at that point until the following gen when people will be willing to buy another console again.

Basically, in the short term, they would lose a lot of revenue if they took that strategy. They spent almost $70b and are thinking long term though. I have no doubt that they are considering it.

I've been wondering though, if many of those live service games Sony are making are intended to be multiplatform (whether that includes Xbox needs to clarified), maybe Sony and MS will play nice with each other. The industry may be about to change more drastically than we think.

343_Guilty_Spark847d ago

Those players would just go to Xbox since many only get PS just because that's where there friends play COD.

alb1899847d ago

I think there will be less PS5 sales. A lots of people buys a console just to buy COD and an sport game.... believe me on that.

LOGICWINS846d ago

You could use the same reasoning with Spiderman, Uncharted, God of War etc. Of course Sony "could" make more money if they made Xbox ports of these franchises...but that's not the goal. The goal is to lock gamers to the PlayStation ecosystem by luring them in with exclusive content that can't be found elsewhere.

It's for this same reason that mainline COD will be exclusive to Xbox/PC/Xcloud once any pre-existing agreements have expired.

Microsoft isn't looking to "make their money back as quickly as possible", they're looking to make Game Pass pretty much mandatory if you're a gamer....which means putting COD on it.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 846d ago
EvertonFC847d ago

Nice profits but it doesn't sit well with me that tbh concerning MT

blacktiger846d ago

It's not profit, that what will pay. And to approve it to what extent. If you cutt of Playstation and say Steam which is the majority. How long will it take and will the shareholder accept that and will regulator accept that.

neutralgamer1992846d ago

What's sad is this is why so many companies want to do live service games because there's so much easy money to be had with Micro transactions that people are clearly willing to pay for

846d ago Replies(1)
Godmars290846d ago

So you're pro microtransactions? You want MS to continue making them apart of their games? Have them incorporate what Activision has been doing?

phoenixwing846d ago

I'm not pro microtransactions I'm just making an observation

846d ago
1Victor846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

…..🤷🏿 In about 14 year it’ll pay it self

Godmars290846d ago

An observation that if MS continues to insert MTs into their games, ones offered through a subscription service no less, that they'll rake in money at the expense of game quality as well as subscribers who tout "free" games.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 846d ago
rlow1847d ago

The article it says they have a 2.7 billion net income.

aaronaton847d ago

I wish more ppl would take the red pill with this practice, the consumers are destroying gaming without even knowing it.

FinalFantasyFanatic847d ago

It's pretty sad, but the majority of people seem to pay for it, I rarely ever spend on micro transactions, it feel bad and unsatisfying to me.

aaronaton847d ago

I bought a golf club 'upgrade' for Everybody's Golf 7 back in 2017, pretty much Pay to Win. I felt physically sick and i couldn't look at myself in the mirror for a few weeks.

EvertonFC847d ago (Edited 847d ago )

I've been gaming since 82 and tbh cosmetics have never been my thing although I did buy the back to the future car in RL
The other day I thought about buying a goal explosion in RL until I saw the price it was £16 for a simple dragon coming out the goal ? I was like wtf.
Also after buying riders republic I paid £7.99 for some credits to buy a new costume only to find out that £7.99 could only get me a emote ffs (lesson learnt)

blackblades846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

I agree I never did spent on MT. I also barely pay for dlc unless its a complete edition or sale on dlc on a game I enjoyed which honestly that I think about it I never actually never touched dlc in some complete edition. People can spend as much as they want its there money even if its stupid imo. I made my choice and I like my choice now and into the future. Heard people pay like $5k maxing a character out in gatcha games which makes no sense.

LucasRuinedChildhood847d ago (Edited 847d ago )

Casuals are a lost cause (e g. FIFA Ultimate Team) but there is some hope for games made for core gamers. We did stop loot boxes in a lot of games. We just have to be willing to cause a fuss like that again which people are thankfully doing for NFTs at least (EA are backing away from them for now).

EvertonFC847d ago

MT wouldn't be too bad if they were priced correctly, examples £16 in RL for a simple goal explosion, rider republic £7.99 for emote etc etc.
Costumes, weapon skins etc shouldn't be more than 99p imo or 3 for £5 or something like that

DeadManMMX847d ago

In war zone you don’t have to buy anything I played over a year before I bought a Ghost Face skin I liked. Doubt I will buy anything else if I do it’s because I liked what I saw and bought it. 2K are the ones that really get people .

secrettalkshowhost846d ago

Its not consumers or "casuals" doing this: its rich people. "Whales" are people who spend amounts like $2000 a day on microtransactions. These are people who make over 100k a year. Popular Youtube/Twitch screamers all likely engage in this behavior.

wiz7191846d ago

Let’s be fare people don’t have to buy MT , it’s people choice to do so. When it’s comes to free to play games MT are necessary. If you want to believe it or not the cost of development is skyrocketing , if you want to keep your games at $60-$70 I think you’ll want them to remain where they are. Now the practices on how they implement them needs to change ,

monkey602846d ago

We are so far past the argument of them being just cosmetic now. There are a number of examples over recent years of games that have completely restructured their progress and reward systems to encourage paying for faster progression. Shadow of War was so bad monolit had to redesign it in a later update

monkey602846d ago

In all my years gaming I can only think of 1 cosmetic I've ever bought. It was the Elsa Walker skin for Claire in Resi 2 Remake. That was the only time o ever felt like 1 was worth having as it was a kick back to fans from the early days

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 846d ago
Magog847d ago

I would blame my fellow gamers but it's the same as a gambling addiction in their games.

alb1899847d ago

Yo don't have to blame anybody for doing what they want. Warzone is a free game, I've never have buy something there and I have played several hours but I have friends that likes to buy the newest skins and that's ok, after all they have enjoyed the game for free and what they buy doesn't give them better chance to win.

Magog847d ago (Edited 846d ago )

But then games are designed around the idea of constantly selling you shit and for me that's not fun. I don't want to be browsing a shopping catalog I want to be having fun. The consumerism being shoved into every corner of game design kills the vibe for me. If the big money in gaming is mtcs then things like basic game design and amazing single player complete experiences take a back seat to that and there are fewer games to play and more casinos to visit.

alb1899846d ago

Magog, you don't have to browser anything if you don't want to and...at least on Warzone you don't have better chance to win by buying staff.
But hey, you play what makes you confortable...that I understand.

darksky846d ago

Free to play games are designed to make money through MT. If no one bought anything then the game won't run for long since the cost of running servers would be unsustainable.

Killer2020UK847d ago

Can't help but feel without preorders and microtransactions, companies would be forced to clean up their act a bit.

This is exactly why we have loot boxes and soon the misuse of NFTs. Don't support it.

Bathyj847d ago

As far as I'm concerned consoles going online brought a lot more negatives then positives. I thought every game was going to get a demo. No more buying magazines with a disc on them. Now I miss those dearly.

wiz7191846d ago

Yeah but at that times games weren’t as complex as they are , it wasn’t consoles going online that did it. It’s the fact that now days people want to have the prettiest graphics and the best animations. All that comes with a cost that’s doing to be pushed onto the consumer , especially if gamers want to keep game prices were they’re at.

PS-Gamer-1986846d ago (Edited 846d ago )

Wiz

Don't kid yourself. Most big Games would still make millions in Profits without selling microtransactions.

Microtransactions are only there for profit maximizing. They are low effort to make, but highly profitable. Ofcourse companies are about maximizing profits but they should stop making excuses

The whining about games getting more expensive and more complex to make in comparison to the past never mentions how massive the market grew compared to back in the day when videogames only were a thing for kids and nerds.

Sitdown847d ago

I think Cyberpunk has shown that pre-orders aren't necessarily the issue. 1) They can be cancelled 2.)The backlash forced them to at least try and clean it up.

Show all comments (74)
250°

Take-Two CEO Doesn’t Think AI Will Reduce Employment or Dev Costs; “Stupidest Thing” He’s Heard

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.

lodossrage1d ago (Edited 1d ago )

They already have AI trained to do coding.......

How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.

CS722h ago

Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.

Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.

Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.

I actually agree with this concept.

Huey_My_D_Long22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.

Darkegg22h ago

Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.

BlackOni21h ago

AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.

- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.

Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.

Einhander197218h ago(Edited 18h ago)

CS7

In the ideal world yes.

In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.

Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.

Edit:

Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.

In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.

The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.

hombreacabado7m ago

that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 7m ago
Number1TailzFan22h ago

You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time

1Victor22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI

senorfartcushion20h ago(Edited 20h ago)

He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.

porkChop18h ago

Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 7m ago
jambola1d ago

Ceo says stupid thing
Part 5837384

Zeref23h ago(Edited 23h ago)

I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.

DarXyde3h ago

I think you mean candor, not intelligence.

If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.

I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.

romulus2322h ago

As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.

RNTody22h ago

Hahaha yeah trust the CEO suit over the actual developers making the games. Good one.

Show all comments (30)
200°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf2d ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic2d ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv722d ago (Edited 2d ago )

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop2d ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv722d ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander19722d ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty2d ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
shinoff21832d ago (Edited 2d ago )

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv722d ago (Edited 2d ago )

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje2d ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils2d ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick2d ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz2d ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand1252d ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff2d ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?

160°

Silent Hill Transmission Livestream

Konami has announced that a Silent Hill Transmission will take place on Thursday, May 30, at 4pm PT/7pm ET that will reveal game updates, a "deeper look at the film," and new merch. Join us at IGN to find out what's next for this beloved franchise.

RaidenBlack3d ago

Hope SH2 gets more polish before release.

P_Bomb3d ago

I’m not paying $94 CAD for what they’ve shown me. Looks rough as sin.

Fishy Fingers3d ago

Ive seen better lip syncing during a Punch and Judy show

Sonic18813d ago (Edited 3d ago )

This looks terrible. Capcom should have done the remake 😂 The animations and gameplay looks stiff.

-Foxtrot3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Okay. I was saying before in another article how SH2 looked better than the last trailer, which is true but damn this looks rough as hell.

I wanted RE4 / Dead Space remake quality

Sonic18813d ago (Edited 3d ago )

I wouldn't buy it for $70 dollars. Maybe when it's on sale.

-Foxtrot3d ago

Yeah full price, deluxe editions, Konami are f***** tripping here.

CrimsonWing693d ago

The characters look terrible to me… like it’s distracting.

repsahj3d ago

I will give this game a chance!!! let's go!

Show all comments (10)