Microtransactions and Agenda Setting

          For the last twenty three years, the Electronic Entertainment Exposition, or E3 for short, has been held as a trade show that annually rallies the entire video game industry. Organized by the Entertainment Software Association, E3 has brought together multibillion dollar game studios, burgeoning independent developers, Youtube and Twitch streamers, and all manner of video game media outlets both global and domestic to share and celebrate video games as well as display emerging hardware and software developments for the coming year. E3 has grown rapidly and so has its outreach and appeal. As it was once a small gathering of developers, almost entirely unknown and exclusive only to those who worked in the industry, as of 2017, it is now a massive event open to any gamers willing to spend the money and make the trip to LA for a chance to occupy the same space as their favorite developers and the newest games. E3 is easily the most important and influential event for the video game industry every year and it can very easily set the tone for an entire console generation – for reference, the longest console generation has been 8 years – with a single press conference.

            Due to its overwhelming importance and public appeal, it is no surprise that a good deal of E3 can heavily affect the delicate relationship between video game developers, publishers and the consumers. E3 press conferences have become very delicate and stressful events for both developers and consumers alike. Developers pray for a positive reception to whatever they are showing off as the game development process is very long and grueling and a poor reception can sink a game up to two or even three years before it is even released. On the other hand, consumers wait with baited breathe to see their favorite game series make triumphant returns or witness the birth of some innovative new intellectual property and can be very quick to judge a new product as good or bad at first glance. It is because of this delicate balance that many business practices and new models of video game content such as episodic games and games as a service tend to be heavily dissected as developers either lean into these practices or veer off from them depending on how their business went in the previous year. None of these practices have been in higher contention than microtransactions. Microtransactions have run the gamut between positives and negatives for both developers and consumers; and they take many different forms depending on the game they are in. For a number of multiplayer games, like the very popular Overwatch, microtransactions take the form of blind boxes that award players with a number of random cosmetic items that can be used to personalize your character without giving you an unfair advantage in game. This is a benefit to developers as players might spend a little extra money on a game in order to customize their favorite characters, but for consumers, the random nature of these microtransactions are tantamount to gambling. In the last two years, the video game industry has seen microtransactions on the rise in some highly questionable ways which is why the term was very much in vogue during E3 2018. The word microtransaction was uttered so often and so flippantly in fact that McCombs and Shaw’s agenda setting theory very easily comes to mind.

            Developed in 1972 by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, and based on Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion, the agenda setting theory asserts that while the media cannot tell us what to think, it can heavily influence what we think about. McCombs and Shaw developed this theory by conducting a study of voters in North Carolina during the 1968 U.S. presidential election. The study showed an influential correlation between topics that were mentioned often or given special attention to in the media, and what issues voters found to be of most significance. “McCombs and Shaw argued that the media use a number of queues to indicate the importance of an issue. On the front page of a newspaper, for example, the importance of a story is indicated by the size of its heading” (Lamb, 2012). In 1998, Maxwell McCombs expanded the agenda setting theory with the addition of the concepts of selection, omission, framing and priming. Selection and omission are fairly normal and self-explanatory for any media outlet and whether intentional or not, which information is selected to be included or omitted from a broadcast is the first and most basic step in setting an agenda. Priming and framing involve somewhat more intention and finesse as they involve the amount of time and space allotted to covering a particular issue, as well as the connotation with which that issue emphasized – respectively (Dyring, 2016). The people who select, omit, frame, and prime are known as “gatekeepers.” Gatekeepers are figures who are influential enough to decide what issues will be covered in the media and how; in the case of E3, these would be the owners and CEOs of the many publishing companies and game development studios, as well as numerous producers for both the games and the event itself. With the existence of gatekeepers and their process from selection to framing of media in mind, it is important to remember that the process of agenda setting is not necessarily sinister. In Maxwell McCombs’ own words, “these agenda setting effects of the media, are the inadvertent by product of the fact that the media do have to select a few topics to pay attention to each day. They don’t have the capacity to talk about dozens and dozens of different topics every day, nor do the audiences really want that much information” (Griffin, 2002). Agenda setting is something of a necessary evil; it is unfortunate that the media cannot equally cover all topics without bias, but human capacity does not necessarily allow for that.

            As I mentioned earlier, E3 2018 paid a great deal of attention to microtransactions; and it is my feeling that this focus on microtransactions was very much an agenda setting by the game developers who chose to make them a part of their presentation. To exemplify this, I will breakdown a specific presentation from E3 2018 in which a companies’ stance on microtransactions was framed as an agenda instead of taking the time to focus on other issues that may relate to a particular game. During the Electronic Arts press conference, known as EA Play, one of the first games presented – and possibly most important for EA’s upcoming fiscal year – was Battlefield V. The Battlefield series is an annual release for Electronic Arts as it is a massively multiplayer game and so it has a very large install base that is ever growing as people wish their friends and family to join them in playing it. As the Battlefield V presentation began, both a general manager for the game’s development studio and a senior producer for the game came out to speak briefly about it – these men may be considered gatekeepers in this example. The presentation begins with the general manager, Oskar Gabrielson, affirming that there have been “lots, and lots of questions from the community, and we have heard you; you want to see more gameplay innovations. You want to know more about how customization actually works” (Gamespot, 2018). Following this, these gatekeepers speak in brief about one or two new minor mechanics that are being added to the game before proudly proclaiming “no loot boxes. No premium pass” (Gamespot, 2018) which is met with a roar of applause after a brief pause. In summation, EA’s gatekeepers selected and primed loot boxes and premium passes – two very common microtransactions – as a topic to add to their brief presentation time in which they even included a pause for positive audience reception. They framed loot boxes and premium passes as a negative and thus very easily won positive favor with their audience. In addition, they chose to omit customization options as a topic of discussion, despite the general manager admitting that he had been asked questions about that facet of the game. By adding microtransactions to the conversation, they were able to make their audience turn their attention to that issue instead of being curious about other features of this new game. In addition, by taking an anti-microtransaction stance, EA secured a favorable depiction of themselves in their fans minds instead of taking the time to speak about innovations in their new game that fans may or may not like.

References

Dyring, C. [Charlie Dyring]. (2016, July 17). Media Influence - Agenda-Setting Function theory [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anPE39wZn0

Entertainment Software Association. (2018). Agenda Setting Theory. Retrieved from https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/communication-theories/sorted-by-cluster/Mass-Media/Agenda-Setting_Theory/

 [Gamespot]. (2018, June 9). Battlefield V - Full Multiplayer Reveal | EA Play E3 2018  [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FbFUsU0yJg

Kosicki, G. M. (2006). Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(1), 124+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.temple.edu/apps/doc/A144343674/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=AONE&xid=61150c20

Lamb, B. [Brett Lamb]. (2012, September 6). The Agenda Setting Function Theory | Media in Minutes | Episode 3 [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7qf9gQpoF4

Logan, R. A. (2014, October). McCombs, Maxwell. Setting the agenda: the mass media and public opinion. CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, 52(2), 248+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.temple.edu/apps/doc/A384341366/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=AONE&xid=a99f19c5

McCombs, M. [A First Look at Communication Theory]. (2014, January 29). Max McCombs on Agenda-Setting Theory [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFENr7ABcc