At least fornite cosmetics have limited gameplay impact (although not zero impact).

It is quite possible to be a relatively competitive player without spending a single cent (and without needing excessive grinding to do so, or at least, no more grinding than a paying player).

This is a lot better than most mobile games (pay more or wait # hours to continue), or games with lootboxes whose results give serious competitive advantage. (There are far too many of the latter to even list.)

But I do dislike any game that depends on any form of microtransaction model. I've no real issue with meaningful DLC for single player games (i.e. the equivlent of the old expansion packs), but otherwise a game should either be a one time cost, or a simple subscription. Not some unholy hybrid of the two as has become all too common.

Ah, but it's a social experience. The primary capital isn't one's competitive standing, it's the uniqueness of your gear.

Fortnite's store UI is designed around limited time access panic sales.

Indeed. In fact, we've even spotted kids using "default" as a slur - which is exactly what you design for if you're building a microtransaction slurry game.

My daughter recently encountered this in Roblox. Her friends gave her a hard time for her default skin. The peer pressure to spend money is real.

This can be easily managed without microttansaction. Simply award in game point that allows a player to buy cosmetics. Do not create any way for players to trade money for in game points.

No profit vs Big profit

> although not zero impact

For reference https://twitter.com/jmantheguy/status/970497516566347776?s=2...

The reward loop works much better when it can be in your pocket and be accessed during moments of boredom/idleness. The lack of friction before getting pulled in is at least as much of a causative factor as the three issues the article highlights. Every little bit of friction diminishes its effectiveness.

One thing that's ironic with a lot of mainstream AAA gaming though, is that even though they aren't copying the revenue model the game design conventions still tend to focus on length of engagement and playtime. I'm sure there's a reason compelling it but I'm not sure what.

I’ve read that the reason is to extend playtime for as long as possible to limit resale market.

Maybe with the advent of digital purchase (and the death of selling your used copy) we’ll see a return to designing games for fun.

Fortnite is a mobile game; it's why Epic is having a fight with Apple.

I really don't think Fortnite is as bad as you're making it out to be (certainly not even in the same league as most mobile microtransaction fests). The core of Fortnite is a pretty good (imo, although I prefer Apex Legends) battle royale fps, and the microtransactions are purely cosmetic items.

In contrast a lot of the big mobile games are barely even games. They're just AI controlling your gambled for gacha characters, which are very not cosmetic only. And the games that aren't AI controlled are still just basic turn based battle mechanics with very little strategy (and what is there is vastly less important than just getting better characters, probably by gambling).

I suspect the market of "people who play mobile games" and the market of "people who play PC games" are not even the same kinds of people, and if you tried to release the same stuff that makes money on mobile on PC, you wouldn't actually attract many new players. Likewise if the mobile market ceased to exist overnight, I doubt the players would be that attracted to many PC/console games. They're getting different things out of them.

Of course this is all just speculation, I don't really know.

Also bear in mind Fortnite was in no means special in offering cosmetic items for microtransactions. The game just got so big that it's a convenient punching bag.

The Fortnite store is special; it's an industry-leading example in exploiting social anxiety through time-limited unique cosmetics.

What's important about Fortnite isn't the core game, it's the social experience and the role that the cosmetics and store play in that.

Epic picked literally the most vulnerable target audience. That's what made Fortnite a hit.

Pretty much all people I ever heard about or new who has issue with gaming were addicted to something like lol, wow or pubg.

The people who play whole night and that are irritable and underperforming during day, who made gaming their whole life, are not playing causual games. They are playing console and pc games.

Those folks are paying their time into the game sure - but casual games in IAPs can drain bank accounts surprisingly fast from folks that'd normally consider themselves above microtransactions. There is a lot of very sneaky psychological tricks that go into trying to get folks to spend an insane amount of money - I'd compare that to something like CS:GO which is trying to get everyone to spend a little bit of money but is less oriented to harness big spenders outside of the marketplace which isn't all that promoted in game.

Well i mean csgo stuff holds value and can be sold off so its not really comparable to normal mtx.