Frankfurt Game Studies II Monetization of Games - Business Information Systems Games / E-Commerce
←
→
Transkription von Seiteninhalten
Wenn Ihr Browser die Seite nicht korrekt rendert, bitte, lesen Sie den Inhalt der Seite unten
Business Information Systems
Games / E-Commerce
Frankfurt Game Studies II ©
__________________________
Monetization of Games
Essentials (English Version)
Research Results II, Frankfurt, August 2021
Devcom Presentation
https://phototravellers.de/frankfurt-sehenswuerdigkeiten/
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 1
Business Information Systems (Wirtschaftsinformatik) - Games & Gamification - Artificial Intelligence (AI) - Digital Leadership and -Transformation - E-Commerce & Digital Business Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie
Business Information Systems (Wirtschaftsinformatik) - Games & Gamification - Artificial Intelligence (AI) - Digital Leadership and -Transformation - E-Commerce & Digital Business Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie
Research Team
K
Lea Sommer Kai Politycki
Strategisches Informationsmanagement Strategisches Informationsmanagement
Business Information Systems Business Information Systems
Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft & Recht Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft & Recht
Faculty 3: Business & Law Faculty 3: Business & Law
Benjamin Warnebold Philipp Plannet
Strategisches Informationsmanagement Strategisches Informationsmanagement & Leadership
Business Information Systems Business Information Systems & Leadership
Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft & Recht Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft & Recht
Faculty 3: Business & Law Faculty 3: Business & Law
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 6
Structure
▪ Introduction
▪ Frankfurt Game Studies I
Monetarisierung durch
▪ Frankfurt Game Studies II In-Game Items
(Mikrotransaktionen)
▪ Leading Research Questions
▪ Study Results
▪ Analysis Games Market: China and AI
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 7
Frankfurt Game Studies ©
Games Industry
Business-Models
Krypto Assets
Monetization-
Models
Marketing-Mix
Fields of Research
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht|Business and Law
Frankfurt Game Studies ©
Games Industry
Business-Models
Krypto Assets
Monetization-
Models
Marketing-Mix
Fields of Research
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht|Business and Law
Koubek, J. / Laudon, K.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 10Koubek, J. / Laudon, K.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 11https://www.theloadout.com/csgo/best-skins
Water Elemental (Glock)
Factory New – $11 / £7.75 / €9
Microtransaction – $38 / £26.79 / €31.10 In-Game Item
Steam Community Market
Weapon Skin
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 12Big Data Analysis
Steam Community Market
Schulz, T. J. Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 13Structure
▪ Frankfurt Game Studies I
Monetization-Models
Cloud Gaming
Monetarisierung durch
In-Game Items
(Mikrotransaktionen)
August 2020, German Language
Available Online
https://fra-uas.hessenfis.de/converis/portal/detail/Publication/11248323?auxfun=&lang=de_DE
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 14Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 15
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 16
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 17
Executive Summary and Consolidated Research Results
Frankfurt Game Studies I
Subscriptions and Cloud Gaming
▪ Subscribers to Netflix and Apple Music do not show an increased affinity for cloud gaming (e.g.
PlayStation Now)
▪ Netflixication of the games industry as a terminology describes trend
▪ Latencies affect the user experience (UX)
▪ User acceptance of subscriptions is higher for gaming platforms (e.g. PlayStation Now) than for
individual games (e.g. World of Warcraft)
In-Game Items
▪ 54% of gamers accept in-game items
▪ Gamers who spend 100 to 200 euros a year on in-game items also buy pay-to-play games.
Cannibalization effects negligible
▪ In-game items increasingly offered to gamers by AI
▪ Willingness to buy in-game items increases with longer game duration.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht|Business and LawExecutive Summary and Consolidated Research Results
Frankfurt Game Studies I
Subscriptions and Cloud Gaming
▪ Subscribers to Netflix and Apple Music do not show an increased affinity for cloud gaming (e.g.
PlayStation Now)
▪ Netflixication of the games industry as a terminology describes trend
▪ Latencies affect the user experience (UX)
▪ User acceptance of subscriptions is higher for gaming platforms (e.g. PlayStation Now) than for
individual games (e.g. World of Warcraft)
In-Game Items
▪ 54% of gamers accept in-game items
▪ Gamers who spend 100 to 200 € a year on in-game items also buy pay-to-play games.
Cannibalization effects negligible
▪ In-game items increasingly offered to gamers by AI
▪ Willingness to buy in-game items increases with longer game duration.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht|Business and LawExecutive Summary and Consolidated Research Results
Frankfurt Game Studies I
Subscriptions and Cloud Gaming
▪ Subscribers to Netflix and Apple Music do not show an increased affinity for cloud gaming (e.g.
PlayStation Now)
▪ Netflixication of the games industry as a terminology describes trend
▪ Latencies affect the user experience (UX)
▪ User acceptance of subscriptions is higher for gaming platforms (e.g. PlayStation Now) than for
individual games (e.g. World of Warcraft)
In-Game Items
▪ 54% of gamers accept in-game items
▪ Gamers who spend 100 to 200 € a year on in-game items also buy pay-to-play games.
Cannibalization effects negligible
▪ In-game items increasingly offered to gamers by AI
▪ Willingness to buy in-game items increases with longer game duration.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht|Business and LawExecutive Summary and Consolidated Research Results
Frankfurt Game Studies I
Subscriptions and Cloud Gaming
▪ Subscribers to Netflix and Apple Music do not show an increased affinity for cloud gaming (e.g.
PlayStation Now)
▪ Netflixication of the games industry as a terminology describes trend
▪ Latencies affect the user experience (UX)
▪ User acceptance of subscriptions is higher for gaming platforms (e.g. PlayStation Now) than for
individual games (e.g. World of Warcraft)
In-Game Items
▪ 54% of gamers accept in-game items
▪ Gamers who spend 100 to 200 € a year on in-game items also buy pay-to-play games.
Cannibalization effects negligible
▪ In-game items increasingly offered to gamers by AI
▪ Willingness to buy in-game items increases with longer game duration
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht|Business and LawStructure
▪ Frankfurt Game Studies II
AI-powered monetization
in the games industry
Monetarisierung durch
In-Game Items
(Mikrotransaktionen)
August 2021, German Language
Available Online
https://www.frankfurt-university.de/ https://www.anderie-management.com/
Google key words: Frankfurt Game Studies II
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 22Key Aspects of the study
Study content and special focus
Monetization through in-game
items (microtransactions) User acceptance and spending Monetization of
on microtransactions microtransactions
Additional offers such as virtual goods, so-
called in-game items, Season / Battle The correlation between user acceptance through the use of AI
Passes or "Lootboxes" (boxes with virtual and the level of spending on The use of machine learning & AI is among
assets) represent an increasingly important microtransactions possibly represents a the powerful tools for monetization of in-
source of revenue for the monetization of causal relationship. game items. There are various application
games. Microtransactions are therefore The general attitude and spending towards scenarios where AI can be used in the
currently the dominant business model with microtransactions as well as in relation to monetization process of in-game items to
strong growth. Pay-2-Play and Free-2-Play games is maximize profits.
investigated.
Frankfurt Game Studies II differentiates
between spending from €0 to €+200 per
gamer per year on computer games.
>>> Analysis Excursus - Western Markets Compared to ChinaTypes of Game
Economy
© Anderie
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 24Types of Game
Economy
© Anderie
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 25In-Game Items
© Anderie
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 26Single &
Dual Currency
© Anderie
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 27Soft- &
Hard Currency
© Anderie
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 28Monetization
© Anderie
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 29In-Game Items & Microtransactions
Differentiation of the different types
Decorative Items e.g. different appearance variants for in-game items
Functional Items e.g. lives, weapons and other upgrades that make the player more powerful
Time Reductions e.g. experience boosts, with which orders in games can be executed faster
Additional Content e.g. missions, stories and levels that can be played by the player
Lootboxes Virtual boxes that contain random items
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 30Methodology and Study Design
A cohort study that examines a specific group of individuals who share a particular characteristic trait.
Type of research The survey of this cohort study refers to the common interest - "playing computer games“ (Core
Gamers).
Between December 2020 and February 2021, random sampling was conducted through internet-
Survey period & number of
mediated online surveys to collect primary data. A total of 934 people participated in the study; of these,
participants 714 surveys (n=714) were completed in full.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 31Key Research Questions
Main focus of this study
Microtransactions
▪ How strong is user acceptance of microtransactions?
▪ Which characteristics can be identified?
▪ Are there changes or differences compared to the Frankfurt Game Studies I 2020?
Spendings, playing time and genres
▪ What is the significance of players making high investments for microtransactions?
▪ Can typical characteristics be derived? Monetarisierung durch
In-Game Items
Artificial intelligence (Mikrotransaktionen)
▪ What impact does the use of artificial intelligence have on microtransaction spending and what is the level of player
acceptance?
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 32User Acceptance
Study results regarding the correlation of user
acceptance and spending on microtransactions as
well as Pay-2-Play and Free-2-Play computer
games
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 33User Acceptance
Number of players who have made microtransactions
▪ 70.3% of respondents have already made
microtransactions.
29,7% → Indicator for high user acceptance
Have you already ▪ The acceptance of microtransactions increased by
Yes
made microtransactions? 16% compared to Frankfurt Game Studies I (2020).
No ▪ Microtransactions can establish themselves as a
70,3% general monetization trend in the long term due to
the high acceptance in this industry.
n=714
56,6%
▪ The majority of respondents spend an average of
0-50€ on microtransactions per year.
How much do you spend ▪ 15.7% of respondents spend more than 200€ per
on average in euros
year on microtransactions.
per year on average on
microtransactions? 17,1% 15,7%
▪ This target group is of great importance for the
games industry and is examined in greater depth in
6,6%
4,0%
this study.
n = 502 0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 34User Acceptance
Number of players who have made microtransactions
▪ 70.3% of respondents have already made
microtransactions.
29,7% → Indicator for high user acceptance
Have you already ▪ The acceptance of microtransactions increased by
Yes
made microtransactions? 16% compared to Frankfurt Game Studies I (2020).
No ▪ Microtransactions can establish themselves as a
70,3% general monetization trend in the long term due to
the high acceptance in this industry.
n=714
56,6%
▪ The majority of respondents spend an average of
0-50€ on microtransactions per year.
How much do you spend ▪ 15.7% of respondents spend more than 200€ per
on average in euros
year on microtransactions.
per year on average on
microtransactions? 17,1% 15,7%
▪ This target group is of great importance for the
games industry and is examined in greater depth in
6,6% this study.
4,0%
n = 502 0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 35User Acceptance
Differences in willingness to buy between Free-2-Play and Pay-2-Play Games
▪ At 40.4%, the willingness to make
microtransactions in Free-2-Play games is 15.7%
higher than in Pay-2-Play games
Do you spend on average 34,9%
40,4% Free-2-Play
more for microtransactions in ▪ The evaluation of the category "neither" is very
Free-2-Play or Pay-2-Play games? Pay-2-Play high at 34.9%. In this context, it can be assumed
games? Neither that players generally play several games (both
Free-2-Play and Pay-2-Play) and that some
therefore engage in microtransactions in both
24,7% areas.
n = 502
▪ Nevertheless, P2P players represent the larger
76,6% share for amounts starting at €150.
▪ Thus, the thesis out of Frankfurt Game Studies I
48,8% (2020) can be verified that players who spend
41,1%
money on Pay-2-Play games spend higher
22,2%
26,6% amounts on microtransactions.
16,9% 17,7%
12,0% 8,1% ▪ Players who indicated "neither" can possibly be
7,8% 7,3% 4,6% 5,7%
3,4% 1,7%
categorized as casual gamers, since they probably
0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€ do not have a strong focus on individual games.
Thus, the share in the lowest price category is
Free-2-Play Pay-2-Play Neither correspondingly high at 76.6%.
n=203 n=124
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 36User Acceptance
Differences in willingness to buy between Free-2-Play and Pay-2-Play Games
▪ At 40.4%, the willingness to spend more for
microtransactions in Free-2-Play games is 15.7%
higher than in Pay-2-Play games
Do you spend on average 34,9%
40,4% Free-2-Play
more for microtransactions in ▪ The evaluation of the category "neither" is very
Free-2-Play or Pay-2-Play games? Pay-2-Play high at 34.9%. In this context, it can be assumed
games? Neither that players generally play several games (both
Free-2-Play and Pay-2-Play) and that some
therefore engage in microtransactions in both
24,7% areas.
n = 502
▪ Nevertheless, P2P players represent the larger
76,6% share for amounts starting at €150.
▪ Thus, the thesis out of Frankfurt Game Studies I
48,8% (2020) can be verified that players who spend
41,1%
money on Pay-2-Play games spend higher
26,6% amounts on microtransactions.
22,2%
16,9% 17,7%
12,0% ▪ Players who indicated "neither" can possibly be
7,8% 7,3% 4,6% 8,1% 5,7%
3,4% 1,7%
categorized as casual gamers, since they probably
0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€ do not have a strong focus on individual games.
Thus, the share in the lowest price category is
Free-2-Play Pay-2-Play Neither correspondingly high at 76.6%.
n=203 n=124
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 37User Acceptance
Differences in willingness to buy between Free-2-Play and Pay-2-Play Games
You would like to purchase a specific in-game item - would you rather buy 10 Lootboxes for ▪ Across all age groups, a direct purchase of the
2 Euros each (20 € in total), each with a 10% chance of getting the desired item, or would desired in-game item is preferred over ‘risky’
you prefer a direct purchase for 20 €? lootboxes.
100,0% ▪ Willingness to buy lootboxes is highest among the
80,5% over 40-year-olds, although it tends toward zero
71,1% 72,2%
64,0% among the over 50-year-olds.
36,0% ▪ A high willingness to purchase lootboxes can also
28,9% 27,8%
19,5% be seen among 15- to 19-year-olds.
0,0%
15-19 y.o. 20-29 y.o. 30-39 y.o. 40-49 y.o. 50+ y.o.
n=45 n=295 n=133 n=25 n=4
Lootbox Direct Purchase
Would you rather play a Free-2-Play game with optional expandable paid content, or would
you prefer a paid game that already includes all the expansions?
▪ 63.5% of respondents would prefer a Pay-2-Play
game with all included expansions over a Free-2-
63,5%
Play game with expandable, paid content.
▪ This can be explained by the fact that the
majority of players want to have a level playing
36,5%
field and are rather negatively opposed to a
"two-tier playership"
Free-2-Play Pay-2-Play
n = 502
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 38User Acceptance
Differences in willingness to buy between Free-2-Play and Pay-2-Play Games
You would like to purchase a specific in-game item - would you rather buy 10 Lootboxes for ▪ Across all age groups, a direct purchase of the
2 Euros each (20 € in total), each with a 10% chance of getting the desired item, or would desired in-game item is preferred over ‘risky’
you prefer a direct purchase for 20 €? lootboxes.
100,0% ▪ Willingness to buy lootboxes is highest among the
80,5% over 40-year-olds, although it tends toward zero
71,1% 72,2%
64,0% among the over 50-year-olds.
36,0% ▪ A high willingness to purchase lootboxes can also
28,9% 27,8%
19,5% be seen among 15- to 19-year-olds.
0,0%
15-19 y.o. 20-29 y.o. 30-39 y.o. 40-49 y.o. 50+ y.o.
n=45 n=295 n=133 n=25 n=4
Lootbox Direct Purchase
Would you rather play a Free-2-Play game with optional expandable paid content, or would
you prefer a paid game that already includes all the expansions?
▪ 63.5% of respondents would prefer a Pay-2-Play
game with all included expansions over a Free-2-
63,5%
Play game with expandable, paid content.
▪ This can be explained by the fact that the
majority of players want to have a level playing
36,5%
field and are rather negatively opposed to a
with expandable content to be including expansions "two-tier playership"
paid
Level Playing Field describes a concept of fairness in
which all gamers play by the same rules and have the
Free-2-Play Pay-2-Play same chances of success.
n = 502
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 39Microtransactions
Study results regarding target groups, platforms,
games and genre
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 40Microtransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Gender
63,6%
55,5%
21,8%
16,6% 16,9%
7,0% 6,0% 7,3%
3,6% 3,6%
0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€
Male Female
n=445 n=55
Insights
▪ Female respondents are more frequently represented in the 0-50 € and 51-100 € categories.
▪ In the category 101-150 € the male respondents spend more money - just under twice as much as the female players
▪ On average, men spend more money on microtransactions than women.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 41Microtransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Frequency of Play
Daily Several times per week Once per week Once per month Less
n = 239 n = 228 n = 20 n = 11 n=4
64,0% 90,0% 72,7%
45,6% 100,0%
22,6%
18,0% 27,3%
16,2%
8,4% 11,0%
5,4% 5,7% 10,0%
3,1%
0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
Insights Scaling adapted for visualization
▪ In general, it can be observed that the willingness to buy correlates strongly with the frequency of play.
▪ As the frequency of play decreases, the willingness to spend more than 50 € on microtransactions decreases.
▪ Players who play daily or several times a week find themselves in the highest price grouping for microtransactions at 22.6% and 11.0%, respectively.
▪ The highest proportion of gamers who spend over 200 € p.a. on microtransactions can be seen among respondents who play games every day.
Gamers who have less time for gaming due to their age consequently also spend less on microtransactions.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 42Microtransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Duration
4 hours
n = 33 n = 210 n = 223 n = 116 n = 76
84,8%
78,1% 66,8% 54,3% 46,1%
23,7% 23,7%
13,8% 15,5%
14,3% 9,5%
9,4% 6,9% 5,3%
9,1% 6,1% 8,6% 9,5% 5,4% 4,0% 1,3%
0,0% 0,0% 2,9% 1,0%
101-150€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
Insights Scaling adapted for visualization
▪ As game duration increases, purchases of microtransactions in the lowest price segment 0-50 € decrease
▪ The longer a gaming session lasts, the greater the willingness to spend more than €50.
▪ From a game duration of more than four hours, almost every fourth player is willing to invest more than 200€ for microtransactions.
▪ In summary: The longer the game duration, the more money is spent on microtransactions; this confirms the findings of Frankfurt Game Studies I (2020).
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 43Microtransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Age
15-19 y.o. 20-29 y.o. 30-39 y.o. 40-49 y.o. 50+ y.o.
n = 45 n = 295 n = 133 n = 25 n=4
53,3% 64,0% 75,0%
53,9% 61,7%
22,2%
18,0% 17,6% 25,0%
14,3% 15,0% 16,0%
11,1% 12,0%
8,9%
5,4% 5,1% 7,5% 8,0%
4,4%
1,5% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
Insights Scaling adapted for visualization
▪ With increasing age, the proportion of those who spend an average of € 0-50 on microtransactions per year increases continuously.
▪ Purchasing power generally increases with age. However, it can be seen that the willingness to spend more than 200€ a year on microtransactions is
highest among 20- to 29-year-olds; thereafter, it declines permanently.
▪ The 15- to 19-year-olds and 20- to 29-year-olds represent the groupings that record the most daily players in percentage terms, at 55.5% and 51.2%
respectively, and although the frequency of play decreases continuously with increasing age, twice as many players among the 20- to 29-year-olds make
more than €200 in microtransactions compared to the 15- to 19-year-olds. This can be explained by the purchasing power of these two groups.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 44Microtransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Platform
64,3%
56,3%
54,1%
18,0% 16,5% 17,8%
15,3% 15,8%
7,7% 7,3% 9,0%
5,1% 4,9% 3,5% 4,2%
0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€
Mobile PC Console
n=183 n=255 n=381
Scaling adapted for visualization
Insights
▪ In the low-price segments (0-50€ & 51-100€), computer gamers spend the most money on microtransactions compared to the other two platforms.
▪ In the highest price segment, console gamers spend over 200€ per year on microtransactions, at 17.8%.
▪ One possible reason why computer gamers in the lower price segments tend to spend more money might be that they play more games on average and
thus have less focus on the individual game.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 45Microtransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Type of purchases - What type of microtransactions have you already made?
Decorative Items Functional Items Time Reductions Insights
n = 272 n = 180 n = 117
42,8% 41,0% ▪ The respondents most frequently purchased
49,3%
additional content such as (DLC) at 61.6%.
Nevertheless, the least is spent on this category on
22,8% 23,9%
19,4% 20,5% average.
19,5% 19,1% ▪ Although 74% of players stated that they prefer a
9,4% 8,5%
8,1% 5,6% 6,0% direct purchase over the 'risky' Lootbox, the Lootbox
4,0%
is the category in which the most purchases over
€200 have been made. This shows that Lootboxes
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
200+€
200+€
200+€
are not preferred by players in theory, but in practice
a lot of money is spent on them.
▪ Decorative items are purchased significantly more
Additional Content Lootboxes often compared to functional items and time
n = 309 n = 219 reductions. No significant differences exist between
56,0%
39,7% the categories in terms of price weighting.
26,5%
19,6%
19,4%
14,6%
8,2%
6,5% 5,9%
3,6%
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
0-50€
0-50€
200+€
200+€
Scaling adapted for visualization
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 46Mikrotransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Genre - Which game genre do you play most often?
Shooter Sport Skill-Based 66,7%
Jump&Run Battle Royale
64,7%
n = 285 43,7% n = 222 n = 68 n = 87 n = 110
55,1% 48,2%
25,2%
21,8% 22,7%
18,6% 15,8%
17,2% 16,2% 16,1%
9,9% 13,2%
6,0% 5,4% 8,0% 8,0% 5,5%
3,2% 2,9% 2,9% 1,1% 1,8%
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
Role-Playingl Simulation Strategy Action Racing
n = 172 57,1% n = 56 n = 136 n = 240 n = 72
61,8% 62,5% 51,4%
59,3%
19,6% 20,8%
20,3% 18,1%
12,5% 16,9% 16,7%
10,5% 8,9% 11,0% 12,1% 8,3%
4,1% 5,8% 6,6% 5,4% 3,3%
1,8% 3,7% 1,4%
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
51-100€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
0-50€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
200+€
Scaling adapted for visualization
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 47Mikrotransactions
How much do you spend on microtransactions per year on average?
Genre
Shooter Sport Insights
55,1%
n = 285 43,7% n = 222
▪ The game genres shooter, racing, battle royale and
sports, with 17.2%, 18.1%, 22.7% and 25.2%
25,2% respectively, record the highest proportion of those
who spend over 200€ per year on microtransactions.
18,6% 17,2%
15,8% At the same time, the 0-50€ category is the least
9,9% represented in these genres.
6,0% 5,4%
3,2%
▪ In the sports game genre, the share of gamers
spending over €200 is the highest of all game genres
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
0-50€
0-50€
200+€
200+€
at 25.2%, while the share in the 0-50€ category is the
lowest at 43.7%.
▪ This is most likely due to the game mode and platform
Battle Royale Racing FIFA Ultimate Team.
n = 110 n = 72
51,4%
48,2%
21,8% 22,7% 20,8%
18,1%
8,3%
5,5%
1,8% 1,4%
101-150€
151-200€
101-150€
151-200€
51-100€
51-100€
0-50€
0-50€
200+€
200+€
Scaling adapted for visualization
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 48AI-Powered Monetization
Study results regarding user acceptance with regard
to AI and use cases
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 49AI-Powered Monetization
Focus on Artificial Intelligence
79,6%
75,4% 75,9%
72,7%
70,0%
66,3%
You are stuck in a game play
situation - Do you want paid In-
Game items that contribute to
21,3%
further successful game 16,9% 15,8% 16,7% 14,8%
12,4% 12,2% 13,3%
development to be recommended 10,4% 8,8% 8,2% 9,3%
to you?
General FIFA Fortnite League of CS:GO Call of Duty
n=502 n=89 n=57 Legends n=30 n=54
n=49
Yes No Maybe
Insights
▪ The majority of players (72.7%) do not want to be offered in-game items when they are stuck in a game play situation.
▪ Despite the negative attitude of gamers towards the concept of selling in-game items through microtransactions, console manufacturers (Sony 2020) and
publishers (Activision 2019) have filed related patents. AI comes into play when players are 'stuck' in certain situations and therefore helpful in-game
items are offered for sale
▪ Since user acceptance of such AI-supported monetization models is essential, it can be assumed that they would not have a high chance of success
without professional marketing support.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 50AI-Powered Monetization
Focus on Artificial Intelligence
83,7% 83,3%
77,9% 78,9%
75,9%
70,8%
Would you like to receive
suggestions for paid In-Game
Items that give you an
advantage in certain game play 16,9%
14,8%
12,7% 12,4% 12,3% 12,2%
9,4% 10,0% 9,3%
situations? 8,8%
6,7%
4,1%
General FIFA Fortnite League of CS:GO Call of Duty
n=502 n=89 n=57 Legends n=30 n=54
n=49
Yes No Maybe
Insights
▪ The majority of players (77.9%) do not want to be offered in-game items that give them a personal advantage.
▪ Getting a personal advantage over other players through purchases is rejected by players even more than getting in-game item purchase suggestions
when they are stuck in a game situation.
▪ This reflects how much gamers dislike a game with a Pay-2-Win mechanism, and explains the ‘storm of protest’ against this form of monetization on
social media (e.g. Star Wars Battlefront 2).
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 51AI-Powered Monetization
Focus on Artificial Intelligence
How do you feel about getting into a game lobby (matchmaking) with other players who have Insights
purchased paid in-game items of a decorative nature (decorative items)?
70,7% 66,3% 66,7% 69,4% 73,3% 66,7%
▪ In this form of monetization strategy, a
large discrepancy exists between
decorative and functional items.
26,5% ▪ While 11.6% reject such a mechanism
20,2% 21,1% 23,3% 20,4%
17,7%
13,5% 13,0%
for decorative items, this percentage
11,6% 12,3%
4,1% 3,3% rises to 71.5% when it comes to
functional items.
Allgemein FIFA Fortnite League of CS:GO Call of Duty
n=502 n=89 n=57 Legends n=30 n=54 ▪ This shows that players do not want
n=49 players they are playing with to have an
Like Dislike Don't care unfair advantage, and again illustrates
the sensitivity to the Pay-2-Win issue,
How do you feel about getting into a game lobby (matchmaking) with other players who have and that players want to have a level
purchased paid in-game items of a functional nature (functional items)? playing field that provides equal
86,7%
79,6% opportunities for all.
71,5% 71,9%
66,0% 63,0%
27,8%
20,5%
16,0% 12,3% 15,8% 14,3%
8,0% 7,9% 6,1% 10,0% 9,3%
3,3%
Allgemein FIFA Fortnite League of CS:GO Call of Duty
n=502 n=89 n=57 Legends n=30 n=54
n=49
Like Dislike Don't care
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 52AI-Powered Monetization
Focus on Artificial Intelligence
How do you feel about being offered appropriate paid add-on content based on your previous play style and preferences?
General 72,7% Insights
n = 502
▪ It can be shown that an AI that
44,3% analyzes gameplay and
preferences leads to a significant
27,9% 27,9%
increase in user acceptance of
16,9%
10,4%
17.5% and 25.0%, respectively, for
these monetization concepts.
24,3% Like Dislike Don't care ▪ Consequently, this approach has
39,4%
the potential to significantly
You will be offered in-game items that contribute to successful game play n=502
You will be offered suitable in-game items that will contribute to successful game play n=122 increase revenue through
77,9% microtransactions.
36,3%
49,2%
37,7%
Like Dislike Don't care
12,7% 13,1%
9,4%
Like Dislike Don't care
You will be offered in-game items that will give you an advantage n=502
You will be offered in-game items suitable for you, which will give you an advantage n=122
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 53AI-Powered Monetization
Focus on Artificial Intelligence
Would you make more microtransactions if you were sure they fit your play style and preferences?
56,5%
9,4% 43,6%
36,1%
23,2%
17,1% 18,2%
15,7%
8,8%
6,6% 6,1%
4,0%
54,6%
0-50€ 51-100€ 101-150€ 151-200€ 200+€
Spendings on microtransactions in general
Yes No Don't care n=502
Spendings on microtransactions, if you would be sure that the in-game items suits your gameplay and your preferences n=181
n = 502
Insights
▪ Gamer who like to be offered in-game items that fit their play style and preferences spend more money on microtransactions on average.
▪ Specifically, it would decrease the proportion of gamers spending €0-50 by 12.9% and increase the proportion of gamers spending €51-100 by 6.1%.
▪ The use of an AI that analyzes gameplay and preferences could increase microtransaction spending.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 54AI-Powered Monetization
Focus on Artificial Intelligence
▪ 46.4% are against people with less
purchasing power or willingness to buy
having to pay less for paid in-game
25,1% 28,5%
How would you feel if people with items.
less purchasing power or ▪ 28.5% support such a pricing policy
willingness to buy had to pay less Like Dislike Don't care approach.
for in-game items? ▪ There is a parallel to the Pay-2-Win
approach and players decide based on
the idea of fairness.
46,4%
▪ Despite the financial benefits of using
an AI to create a player profile,
22,9% reluctance among gamers must be
27,1% expected, as 50% of gamers oppose
How do you feel about a player the storage and analysis of the player
profile being created about you
Like Dislike Don't care profile. Thus, a company must weigh
to provide you with more
suitable offers? whether the introduction of such a
system is worthwhile.
50,0%
n = 502
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 55Analysis Excursus
Western markets compared to China
Is the use of AI in the Chinese games industry more advanced than in the West
and what influence does this have on the German games market?
How do you feel about a player profile being created about you to
provide you with more suitable offers?
22,9%
27,1%
AI acceptance is considered a critical factor for
monetization models to work.
50,0%
Like Dislike Don't carel
>>> "Therefore, AI is not perceived as disruptive in China as it is in the
Based on this question of the Frankfurt Game Studies II it can be stated that 50%
West, but as a technology that will strengthen traditional industries by
of the (German) gamers reject the use of AI.
making them more efficient and profitable."Analysis Excursus
Western markets compared to China
Is the use of AI in the Chinese games industry more advanced than in the West
and what influence does this have on the German games market?
Which of the following games do you think best implements
monetization of in-game items?
5%
40%
100% 60% 100% 100% 95%
League of Call of
Fortnite CS:GO FIFA
Legends Duty
When analyzing the data of Frankfurt Game Studies II, it is striking that Tencent
already holds stakes in 3 out of 5 publishers of the top games - or has taken over FIFA Fortnite League of CS:GO Call of Duty
these companies. Thus, the influence of Chinese games companies on the Western Legends
games market becomes evident. USA China
It can be assumed that Chinese companies are very likely to already dominantly use AI-supported monetization models (in China). Based on submitted patents (from e.g.
Sony, Activision Blizzard), it can be anticipated that Western companies are also exploring the possibilities for using AI in the monetization of microtransactions.
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 57Executive Summary
Consolidated research findings
- Acceptance of microtransactions / in-game items increased to 70.3% among core gamers
Microtransactions - Direct purchase of in-game items (71.1%) preferred over lootbox purchases (28.9%) among 15–19-year-
olds
- Correlation of game duration / expenditure: The longer the game session, the greater the willingness to
spend more than 50 €.
Editions, Duration and - Correlation between game frequency and spending: From a game duration of more than four hours,
Genres every fourth gamer is willing to invest more than 200€ for microtransactions.
- Free-2-Play-Games (56,6% 0-50€); in Pay-2-Play-Games (15,7% 200+€)
- Sports-Game-Genre (25,2%> €200)
- Discrepancy between acceptance of AI (rejection) and user behavior (use if beneficial)
Artificial Intelligence - Strong sense of fairness among gamers (Level Playing Field)
- China: Advanced in AI, higher user acceptance than in Western countries
Spendings per year (p.a.)
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 58Games Industry Management
The WebpageGames Industry Management
The ChannelProf. Dr. Lutz Anderie
Business Information Systems Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences
Games / E-Commerce Niebelungenplatz 1, D-60318 Frankfurt am Main
Frankfurt Game Studies II
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie
AI-Powered Monetization of Games Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht
Gebäude BCN, Raum 820
Tel.: +49 69 1533-2939
l.anderie@fb3.fra-uas.de
Press & PR Contact
M. A. Claudia Staat
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Pressereferentin
Tel.: +49 69 1533-3331
staat@kom.fra-uas.de
Prof. Dr. Lutz Anderie Fachbereich 3: Wirtschaft und Recht | Business and Law 62Sie können auch lesen
