The level of successfulness of different type of microtransaction in Counter Strike: Global Offensive

As table shows, the most succesfull type of microtransaction in Counter Strike: Global Offensive according to the results of survey is the other items that players are buying from the Steam market. The second from the top is cases and keys for these cases. The least profitable type of microtransaction is a Prime account in Counter Strike.

Therefore, these 2 tables help to conclude that according to the collected data from two surveys with more than 100 respondents, the most succesful type of microtransaction in DOTA 2 is “The International” battle pass. Probably it is because of the fact, that within this type of microtransaction, players can get the rarest items and some of them won't be available for trading later. Also, as it was stated, nearly every battle pass each year have its unique “Arcana” items, treasures, skins for characters. Therefore, it is one type of microtransaction that consists of other type of microtransaction and when players purchase only battle pass, they are getting the opportunity to get treasures, rare skins and untradable “Arcana” items for “free” by playing the game. In the case of Counter Strike: Global Offensive the most succesfull item is the other items from the Steam market. There is also a logical interpretation of such results. The reason for this is a fact that chances of droping a rare items within cases in Counter Strike are significintly lower comparing to DOTA 2 and players want some specific skins which much easier to buy directly from the market. At the same time, cases in Counter Strike has higher amount of items within one loot box what significantly decreases chanses of getting some specific skin that a player wants. At the same time, cases and keys for these cases also have enourmous monetization, but it is lower comparing to skins from the Steam market and this is why it is only “B” type of microtransaction.Battle pass “Shattered Web” was not such succesfull within Counter Strike: Global Offensive as it is in the case of DOTA 2. It is probably because of the fact, that players were not able to receive such any actually unique and rare items that can not be purchased on the Steam market and if any item from battle pass can be purchased on the Steam market or gambled within some cases, then there is no actual point to waste immense amount of money with the aim to get some specific item from the battle pass. The Counter Strike did not use numerous amount of features that were able in the “The International” battle pass such as cards with players, there was no bundles and in general battle pass “Shattered Web” was suffering from much poorer design comparing to “The International” battle pass. It means that this type of microtransactions on a completely different levels of success. Capsules are the “D” type of success, because in the vast majority of capsules only different stickers on weapons are included and there is no actual skins. Probably players are less interested in stickers only and rather would waste their money on the weapon skinsm glovesor a knife. The least succesful type is Prime account in Counter Strike and the major reason of this is a fact that players can simply get it for free by playing a game and upgrading their level. However, some impatient gamers can not wait and they are deciding to buy this Prime account.

Immense amount of work was done with the aim to check if there is a correlation between players online and amount of sold items on the Steam market - amount of trades in other words. The results showed that only one item had strong and positive correlation, while the vast majority of researched in-game items had just positive and slight correlation. The average correlation for 3 cases from Counter Strike: Global Offensive is 0. 77 and it is possible to say that hypothesis in the case of Counter Strike was tested to be positive and can not be refused - there is a correlation between players online and amount of sold items on the Steam market in the Counter Strike. This correlation is positive and equals to the 0. 77. The analysis of DOTA 2 in-game items showed that the average correlation for 3 researched “Arcana” items is 0. 451 and in this case it is possible to say that there is super slight and positive correlation between researched variables.

The analysis of such unique microtransaction as “The International” battle pass in DOTA 2 showed the complextity of this specific microtransaction and that there is a solid reasons why game does not allow players to get the whole spectre of opportunities after the release of battle pass - they want to increase online in other months by adding new treasures, bundles, skins for characters and this is what will motivate players to return into the game. Numerous charts proved that battle pass nearly every year had some short period of a sharp growth in revenue which was caused by some new treasure, bundle or other in-game offer that is available within battle pass. Moreover, both surveys for DOTA 2 and Counter Strike: Global Offensive showed that vast majority of players will come back to the game after a break if some new microtransaction (as battle pass, new “Arcana” item or new case in Counter Strike or something else) will be released within the game. In the case of Counter Strike survey 77 percent of respondents who ever used to make a microtransaction in the game claimed that they are going to come back to the game. In the case of DOTA 2 survey just 77 respondents stated that they are going to return to the game and 29 of them were sure about this while in Counter Strike survey only 19 respondents were sure about their come back to the game after a break. Within both of surveys the question if respondents ever had a feeling of being forced to pucrhase some in-game items also was present with the aim to understand if microtransactions can be noticeable for players and if players feel the pressure that the game forces them to perform the action of microtransaction. It turned that in the case of DOTA 2, majority of respondents have never ever had a feeling of being forced to perform a microtransaction and the same situation is for Counter Strike: Global Offensive: the vast majority of players have never ever had a feeling of being forced to perform a microtransaction which was promoted by the game. The last question showed that within DOTA 2 21 reposendents used to buy “Arcana” items through the game market what is a high number and it means that the game receives the whole price while players are using in-game market. In the case of Counter Strike: Global Offensive 23 percent of respondents are using cases with the aim to get neccesary cosmetic skins and it also leads to higher revenue for game developers, because players are trying to gamble some specific skins and in average it is much more profitable than just purchasing a skin from the Steam market.

Moreover, the null hypothesis was tested and it appeared that in both DOTA 2 and Counter Strike: Global Offensive it was rejected, because an independent t - test which was conducted in SPSS showed that there is a significant difference between means of months when there was a new offer of microtransaction and when there was no microtransaction. In more details, it is possible to claim that in the case of DOTA 2, the new microtransaction brings about 45 015. 750 more players to the game and in the case of Counter Strike: Global Offensive, the new offer of microtransaction (new case or new battle pass) brings to the game in this month about 48 722. 217 and it is a significant number. Therefore, it is possible to claim that players online depend on new microtransaction and at the same time it proves the validity of results from both of surveys, because it showed that majority of respondents would come back to the game after a break only because of new microtransaction.

In general, microtransactions are playing a crucial role in the overall revenue of the game. According to Statista, DOTA 2 had a revenue in 406 million of dollars in 2017 (Gough, 2019). However, it was found out within this research, that only “The International” battle pass in 2017 brought about 70 million dollars of pure revenue to the game. Other types of microtransactions are less profitable, but it is surely that in general profit from microtransactions was about 160 million of dollars what means that DOTA 2 for sure gets 40 percent of its income from microtransactions.

Therefore, in the end, it is possible to say that within this immense amount of work the initial goals were successfully accomplished by a huge analysis of diverse type of microtransaction in such free-to-play online games as DOTA 2 and Counter Strike: Global Offensive. It was shown that different micrtotransaction has different monetization and that some of them are not that attractive for players, while some of them are motivating players to visit a game over and over again. However, the diversity of microtransaction leads to higher monetization in the end. The research question was formulated as: how microtransaction affects the monetization in free-to-play online games and the research showed that microtransaction actually increases amount of players online on a monthly basis what was tested within the null hypothesis and it leads to the higher profit generation, because within the second hypothesis it was tested that higher amount of players online leads to the higher profit generation, because there is a slight and positive correlation between amount of players and amount of sold items. Finally, it was proved via both surveys that majority of respondents used to perform the action of microtransaction at least once in their gaming career.

References

1. An ongoing analysis of Steam's concurrent players in Counter Strike: Global Offensive. Retrieved from https://steamcharts.com/app/730April 19th 2020

2. An ongoing analysis of Steam's concurrent players in DOTA 2. Retrievedfrom https://steamcharts.com/app/570April 18th 2020

3. Artz B, Kitcheos A. (2016), Microtransactions: A Study of Consumer Behavior and Virtual Goods/Services Among Students at Linköping University in Sweden. https://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:941477

4. DOTA 2 Prize Pool Tracker. Retrieved from https://dota2.prizetrac.kr/20th April 2020

5. Edwin L. Phil Tan (2019), Microtransactions in AAA Video Games - Are They Really Necessary? https://galacticamedia.com/index.php/gmd/article/view/14

6. Gough C. (2019), Revenue Generated By DOTA 2 Worldwide From 2015 To 2017. https://www.statista.com/statistics/807617/dota-2-revenue/

7. Hamari J., Alha K., Jarvela S., Kivikangas J. M., Koivisto J., Paavilainen J. (2017), Why do players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase motivations. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311643279_Why_do_players_buy_in-game_content_An_empirical_study_on_concrete_purchase_motivations

8. Laurijsen D. W. J. (2013), Effects of Micro-transactions on the Satisfaction of Players in Online Games. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=130539

9. Marc von Meduna, Steinmetz F.L.P., Ante L., Reynolds J., Fiedler I. (2019), Loot Boxes - A Game Changer? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331935977_Loot_Boxes_-_A_Game_Changer

10. McCaffrey M. (2019), The Macro Problem of Microtransactions: The Self-Regulatory Challenges of Video Game Loot Boxes. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3309612

11. SuperData (2019), 2019 Year In Review: Digital Games and Interactive Media. https://www.superdataresearch.com/reports/2019-year-in-review

12. Tomic N. (2017), Effects of micro transaction in video games industry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322313479_Effects_of_micro_transactions_on_video_games_industry

13. Toyama M. C., Cortes M. R. & Ferrati G. (2019), Analysis of the Microtransaction in the Game Market: A Field Approach to the Digital Games Industry. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338418093_Analysis_of_the_Microtransaction_in_the_Game_Market_A_Field_Approach_to_the_Digital_Games_Industry

14. Wolfarth K. S. (2019), The product life cycle of CS:GO skins as virtual goods and it's influencing factors A comparison between physical and virtual goods https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333001545_The_product_life_cycle_of_CSGO_skins_as_virtual_goods_and_it's_influencing_factors_A_comparison_between_physical_and_virtual_goods

15. Yilmax M. A. (2016), A Study On Cosmetic Virtual Product Purchase In Multiplayer Online Battle Area Games. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330534213_A_Study_On_Cosmetic_Virtual_Product_Purchase_In_Multiplayer_Online_Battle_Area_Games

Appendix

Appendix 1. The DOTA 2 survey

Figure 28. First two question in DOTA 2 survey

Figure 29. Third question in the DOTA 2 survey

Figure 30. Last 3 question in the DOTA 2 survey

Appendix 2. The Counter Strike: Global Offensive survey

Figure 31. First two question in the CS GO survey

Figure 32. Third question in the CS GO survey

Figure 33. Last 3 question in the CS GO survey