Overkill Studios - The developers of Payday 2: Asks for 20$ "donations"

[Mutant1988]

Or rather, they expect you to pay 20$ for 4 cosmetic items that are only available for a certain time. And they word is as a voluntary "donation".

And only if enough people donate will they give us additional content. As opposed to, you know, just charging reasonably for the content they do release.

http://www.overkillsoftware.com/thehypetrain/

This is a vague season pass combined with pre-orders and stretch goals. The worst of all those things.

But here's the thing - The game has been out for well over a year now. Now suddenly we need to fork over another 20$ (10 less than what the game itself released for) to get these items or miss out on them forever.

This is a complete insult to their audience. Pay 20$ now and you "might" get something later and if you don't, you can never get the content locked behind those 20$.

And before you ask, no, Overkill is not doing badly financially:

In Swedish:
http://media.starbreeze.com/2014/11/Del%C3%A5rsrapport-2014-07-01-2014-09-30.pdf

"Under kvartalet står PAYDAY 2 för 22,8 MSEK av netto-omsättningen"
"During this quarter Payday 2 make up 22,8 MSEK of the net-revenue"

That is 2 764 0896 U.S. dollars.

https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avanza.se%2Faktier%2Fresultat-balans.html%2F5528%2Fstarbreeze

They already made profits from their previous content production. Yet now the have decided that it's time to release content at a price taht is around 4 times as high as past content, where the majority of the product only promises and which has a best before date (If you don't buy it now, you don't get the content and don't "contribute" to the progress towards later promises).

Let's also note that they have 2 DLC packages. $20 for cosmetics and a "secret" extra with the time limit as well as a $5 package with other content. These have similar names, but even then the more expensive content does NOT include the $5. I find this deceptive.

So that is then $25 to have everything the game has to offer. $5 less then the game retailed for and a third of the cost of the game and ALL the other content released up until this point.

 

[Zhukov]

So... I suppose, you could, umm... not give them your money?

Since, y'know, it's voluntary. You don't "need" to fork out for anything.

EUREKA! HOLY SHIT, I'VE SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

My god, I'm a fucking genius.

 

[Mutant1988]

So... I suppose, you could, umm... not give them your money?

Since, y'know, it's voluntary. You don't "need" to fork out for anything.

EUREKA! HOLY SHIT, I'VE SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

My god, I'm a fucking genius.

If I don't, ALL players get less content and I miss out on every getting that content which has been put behind a 20$ paywall.

That is the problem. I don't mind paying a reasonable sum for a quality product. This is not a quality product. This is forcing a purchase or be penalized for it by never being able to access it and not unlocking future content.

 

[Zhukov]

So... I suppose, you could, umm... not give them your money?

Since, y'know, it's voluntary. You don't "need" to fork out for anything.

EUREKA! HOLY SHIT, I'VE SOLVED THE PROBLEM!

My god, I'm a fucking genius.

If I don't, ALL players get less content and I miss out on every getting that content which has been put behind a 20$ paywall.

That is the problem. I don't mind paying a reasonable sum for a quality product. This is not a quality product. This is forcing a purchase or be penalized for it by never being able to access it and not unlocking future content.

Okay, either:

(a) What they are offering is (to you) worth the price they are asking.

OR

(b) What they are offering is (to you) NOT worth the price they are asking.

If (a), give them your money. If (b), do not give them your money.

It always makes me laugh when pricing is called "an insult" to the customer. If their prices are insulting to you, then I suggest you insult them right back by not paying said prices.

 

[Dajmin]

Wait... They're asking for money? For additional content? That was made by real people with bills to pay? The nerve of some people!

I have nothing productive to add, I think Zhukov has it spot on. Besides, a "donation" gets you nothing in return beyond that warm fuzzy feeling inside.

 

[Mutant1988]

The pricing is not the insult.

The introduction of stretch goals, pre-orders, vague products, time limited content and trying to pass of an inflated price for minimal content as a donation (Which by the way is the most significant contributor to the stretch goal) is the insult.

They already make money with the products they actually sell. More than enough to keep the company going and make a profit.

This is nothing but excess and greed that forces customers to a purchase to "earn" further incentives or forever miss out on content.

 

[Zhukov]

This is nothing but excess and greed that forces customers to a purchase to "earn" further incentives or forever miss out on content.

It's greed to charge a certain price?

Okay, one of two things will happen here.

Either people will give them enough money to make it worth their while, in which case their business model is clearly not enough to put people off buying their stuff.

Or people will not give them enough money to make it worth their while, in which case they will presumably adjust their business model.

If you disapprove of their business model, I suggest not giving it any money, and thus encouraging the second outcome.

You can be as insulted as you like, it means nothing if you give them your money.

 

[Dajmin]

They already make money with the products they actually sell. More than enough to keep the company going and make a profit.

Based on what evidence? Unless you're their accountant you can't say how well a company is doing. It's not like they'll be posting on Twitter about how broke they are and how the company is close to folding. That's not how you keep investors happy.

Also, remember that software evolves. It's not like a new piece of hardware that stays the same until the company is ready to release the upgrade. Software needs people working on bug fixes, code optimisation, etc. Those people still need a salary.

This is nothing but excess and greed that forces customers to a purchase to "earn" further incentives or forever miss out on content.

Nobody is FORCING anything. You don't HAVE to pay. Your game will continue to work without this content. And the best part in this case is that it doesn't sound like it's going to end up pay to win. It's COSMETIC only (until the rest is announced at least). So you lose NOTHING by not paying. What's insulting about being given a choice?

What you should really be complaining about is the pre-order bonus. That's the biggest scam in the gaming world right now and something that needs to be stopped.

 

[Prince of Ales]

What this aims to do is to inform others of what they are doing so that they too will abstain from purchasing and thus supporting practices such as these.

You're presuming other people somehow don't understand the business model without you to guide them. Have a bit more faith in the public. I think you'll find that people who pay into schemes like this understand it very well. They simply feel, unlike you, that the rewards are worth the price.

Chill; believe in the markets. If it's worth it, it'll get paid for.

 

[Mutant1988]

Based on what evidence? Unless you're their accountant you can't say how well a company is doing. It's not like they'll be posting on Twitter about how broke they are and how the company is close to folding. That's not how you keep investors happy.

I linked their financial report for april - September of last year, in which Payday 2 alone made 2,7 million dollar. Since then they have multiple releases all which by all accounts (Staying on top of the Steam top sellers list for days) have sold well.

What you should really be complaining about is the pre-order bonus. That's the biggest scam in the gaming world right now and something that needs to be stopped.

I did.

They added a pre-order 1 year and 6 months into the lifespan of the game.

Nobody is FORCING anything. You don't HAVE to pay. Your game will continue to work without this content. And the best part in this case is that it doesn't sound like it's going to end up pay to win. It's COSMETIC only (until the rest is announced at least). So you lose NOTHING by not paying. What's insulting about being given a choice?

You lose progress on the stretch goals and the ability to at all ever get that content past a certain date. There is a difference between something physically forcing you and something strongly pushing you. They are essentially asking you to spend 20$ on something you don't want for the possibility of later getting something you do want.

I can either spend my money (Quite a lot of it for very little) or forever have an incomplete game. Thanks for making me choose between those two things Overkill.

Should I also add that this company ran another community event last year that they still haven't delivered some of the promised content for? Or that they sold exclusive rights to cosmetic items to Alienware that you can only obtain by owning Alienware hardware?

 

[Zhukov]

Did I ever say I was giving them my money you condescending blow-hard?

I am in awe of your eloquence.

I'm describing a consumer unfriendly practise that aims to deceive (By promising crowd sourcing rewards that may or may not be reached...

"If we get X amount of money, we will make Y content."

How it that deceptive? They have a little graph and everything. It's all spelled out for anyone who wishes to throw money at them.

They're basically just running a kickstarter.

... and by trying to pass off the cost as a "donation" rather than simple greed)

Actually, calling it a donation is more honest. A donation is money given without expectation of return.

And again with the greed accusation. They're a business. They exist to make money. It is normal for them to try and make more money. So long as they aren't hurting anyone in the process, there's nothing wrong with that.

... and force users (By making the time they are available limited) to make purchases of content sold at an inflated price.

They're not forcing anyone to do anything. Anyone who wishes to not take part is entirely free to spend their money elsewhere.

What this aims to do is to inform others of what they are doing so that they too will abstain from purchasing and thus supporting practices such as these.

Surely anyone who was disinclined to participate would do so as soon as the saw what was on offer?

 

[Dajmin]

I linked their financial report for april - September of last year, in which Payday 2 alone made 2,7 million dollar. Since then they have multiple releases all which by all accounts (Staying on top of the Steam top sellers list for days) have sold well.

And what about their OPEX and CAPEX numbers? The game could sell be selling big, but they could be losing money elsewhere. Maybe the publishers are taking a big cut. Maybe the CEO is in debt to some mob boss. There's too many variables to say for sure. But whatever.

You lose progress on the stretch goals and the ability to at all ever get that content past a certain date. There is a difference between something physically forcing you and something strongly pushing you. They are essentially asking you to spend 20$ on something you don't want for the possibility of later getting something you do want.

I can either spend my money (Quite a lot of it for very little) or forever have an incomplete game. Thanks for making me choose between those two things Overkill.

Welcome to capitalism. You could buy something at a store today and it go on sale tomorrow. Or you could buy something and it breaks or doesn't work as you'd expected. That's how the world works.

Stretch goals, by very definition, are EXTRA content. That means in order to reach a stretch goal the original game content should already be done. So technically what you're getting, stretch or not, is a complete product. You might WANT extra content, but don't we all? I'd like more power in my car, but also better economy. I'd like more Binding of Isaac content. But I paid for both and I got both. Free trade in action.

Should I also add that this company ran another community event last year that they still haven't delivered some of the promised content for? Or that they sold exclusive rights to cosmetic items to Alienware that you can only obtain by owning Alienware hardware?

Other than the Alienware part, this is probably the most relevant thing in the whole conversation. They've already failed to provide things they've offered in the past and it sounds like you got burned. In which case your decision should already be made - don't give them money.

Or give them money again and complain again the next time they fail to provide.

Bottom line here is that nobody is holding a gun to your head and stealing your wallet. You're either choosing to give them the cash in good faith, or you're not. You're trusting them to deliver or you're not. Do or do not, there is no force

 

[josemlopes]

I kind of get where you are coming from, if it was Activision doing this in a COD game no one would say what they are saying here.

They do seem to be holding that content hostage (since its time limited) for a rather big amount of money under the pretence that since its a donation its justified.

Then there is the other thing where they say that its for a free content update, but if they only make it if people buy this overpriced content first (4 masks) then is it really free in the first place? I guess for some it will be free, for others not so much because they are asking a lot of money.

I dont, know, sure, they dont have the money someone like Activision has but at the same time the development of this game has been shit and the devs only fuck it up more and more so... yeah.

 

[Alfador_VII]

Ok, Selling overpriced DLC, don't have a fundamental problem with it (thought I'd probably not buy it)

But don't call it a donation. Can I get the masks without giving them $20? nope. The it's not a donation, it's a charge. I don't care if the cash does go towards making some free DLC everyone will get later, it's not like it won't happen if this DLC doesn't sell.

 

[Mutant1988]

I linked their financial report for april - September of last year, in which Payday 2 alone made 2,7 million dollar. Since then they have multiple releases all which by all accounts (Staying on top of the Steam top sellers list for days) have sold well.

And what about their OPEX and CAPEX numbers? The game could sell be selling big, but they could be losing money elsewhere. Maybe the publishers are taking a big cut. Maybe the CEO is in debt to some mob boss. There's too many variables to say for sure. But whatever.

The stock data on their parent company Starbreeze:

http://www.borsdata.se/analyze/comp/star

Profit margin - 2014: 53,1% = 118,5 Million SEK (~14,3 Million Dollar).
Quarter 1 2015: 31,3% = 48,9 Million SEK (~5,7).

That is 5,7 million they have made a month into this year and/or is expected to make in it's first 3 months.
That is the money they made after ALL expenses.

Do you think it is reasonable for a company that makes that much to ask for "donations"?

 

[Dajmin]

Do you think it is reasonable for a company that makes that much to ask for "donations"?

According to that site they made losses for 3 straight years but still managed to stay in business. There's a good chance they're still paying off debts as a result. I don't know enough about accounting to really talk about the rest of the figures, although I can see their share price is down again.

But the bottom line, which you can keep rephrasing as often as you like, is that they can ask for whatever they want - you don't have to give them a penny. There's a website dedicated to that kind of thing, you might have heard of it [http://www.kickstarter.com/].

I can't keep posting the same thing any more, I'll end up getting flagged as a bot. Good luck with your decision.

 

[Mutant1988]

Do you think it is reasonable for a company that makes that much to ask for "donations"?

According to that site they made losses for 3 straight years but still managed to stay in business. There's a good chance they're still paying off debts as a result. I don't know enough about accounting to really talk about the rest of the figures, although I can see their share price is down again.

But the bottom line, which you can keep rephrasing as often as you like, is that they can ask for whatever they want - you don't have to give them a penny. There's a website dedicated to that kind of thing, you might have heard of it [http://www.kickstarter.com/].

I'm just going to start ignoring you repeating that tired old cliché. I don't pay for things I don't consider worthy my money.

You can stop acting as if I do something opposite of my intention already.

They put a kickstarter into a game for additional content in a product already released and they put a time limit on us purchasing an overpriced pre-order to work up funds towards stretch goals that may or may not be reached.

This the company, that made a profit in the millions, reasons qualifies as donations.

And no, the company does not still have debts because if it did they would not be able to repost profits. What part of "after all expenses" is difficult to understand?

 

[Prince of Ales]

And no, the company does not still have debts because if it did they would not be able to repost profits. What part of "after all expenses" is difficult to understand?

Debt isn't an expense. Interest is an expense. You can be in profit for the year and still owe money; that's extremely common in fact.

 

[FC Groningen]

I linked their financial report for april - September of last year, in which Payday 2 alone made 2,7 million dollar. Since then they have multiple releases all which by all accounts (Staying on top of the Steam top sellers list for days) have sold well.

And what about their OPEX and CAPEX numbers? The game could sell be selling big, but they could be losing money elsewhere. Maybe the publishers are taking a big cut. Maybe the CEO is in debt to some mob boss. There's too many variables to say for sure. But whatever.

The stock data on their parent company Starbreeze:

http://www.borsdata.se/analyze/comp/star

Profit margin - 2014: 53,1% = 118,5 Million SEK (~14,3 Million Dollar).
Quarter 1 2015: 31,3% = 48,9 Million SEK (~5,7).

That is 5,7 million they have made a month into this year and/or is expected to make in it's first 3 months.
That is the money they made after ALL expenses.

Do you think it is reasonable for a company that makes that much to ask for "donations"?

In general, do you think people or companies haven't asked for donations in similar or better circumstances? Take the American Red Cross alone for example which has a balance of billions of dollars, but are still asking for donations. I'd say just the financial situation alone should not exclude them from the liberty to ask for donations. I personally prefer such donations over the donations for example youtubers are receiving for filling the channels with their noise. Let people pay and ask if they feel like it.

 

[Mutant1988]

And no, the company does not still have debts because if it did they would not be able to repost profits. What part of "after all expenses" is difficult to understand?

Debt isn't an expense. Interest is an expense. You can be in profit for the year and still owe money; that's extremely common in fact.

And my point is that they don't owe more money than they make. If I read this right:

https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avanza.se%2Faktier%2Fresultat-balans.html%2F5528%2Fstarbreeze

Their profits far exceed their listed debts.

Take the American Red Cross

You do know that the Red Cross is an organization that provides humanitarian aid, right? If they lack the means to get that aid where it's needed the money that would fund it stays in their coffers.

I would not complain had Overkill in any way helped anyone but themselves.