Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jag

More EA drama

36 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, Jag said:

 Is this all an orchestrated drama to get free pup for EA battlefront?

5 minutes ago, Jazz said:

Honestly, it would not surprise me if it is a marketing method. 

Nothing I have seen from EA shows the of level of intelligence needed to come up with a long term plan like that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dunnar said:

Nothing I have seen from EA shows the of level of intelligence needed to come up with a long term plan like that.

 

 

When it comes to marketing and screwing their customers, EA shows a level of intelligent malevolence.  In fact, I think they spend more on marketing than on developing many of their games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was on the news here this morning. Hours ago.

Quote

But as we approach the worldwide launch, it's clear that many of you feel there are still challenges in the design. We’ve heard the concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages. And we’ve heard that this is overshadowing an otherwise great game. This was never our intention. Sorry we didn’t get this right.

We hear you loud and clear, so we’re turning off all in-game purchases. We will now spend more time listening, adjusting, balancing and tuning. This means that the option to purchase crystals in the game is now offline, and all progression will be earned through gameplay. The ability to purchase crystals in-game will become available at a later date, only after we’ve made changes to the game. We’ll share more details as we work through this.

Link: https://www.ea.com/games/starwars/battlefront/battlefront-2/news/pre-launch-update

 

Dunnar likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jag said:

Good for them.  Now at least, there is some motivation to play before it becomes PTW. haha

EA: "We're turning it off for now so buy the game. We'll be re-implementing pay to win somehow but we're not telling you how"

That was my read, too. "Give us money now, and we promise we'll screw you over later after the refund period lapses."

Notice the said they'll move the ability to purchase crystals(meth) in game to offline ... so I assume that means you can still purchase them out of game through a web-store, hence they're not really removing pay-to-win.

When EA speaks, pay attention to what is actually said; don't just hear what you wanted them to say.

Edited by Elovia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunnar said:

They didn't have to do anything.  The fact that they turned of something that was integral to their design is a pretty big deal.

The Disney execs contacted the EA ones and this was announced.  Remember the new SW movie is due out in about 3 weeks.  They don't' want ANY bad press to affect it.  I am guessing in January the cash shop goes full speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who basically makes FTP-content in the form of ad-based free-to-watch content on Youtube, I see nothing wrong with the pricing model. I mean, I've hated pretty much every FTP game I've ever paid, I loathe the microtransaction-fueled achievement-based experience they offer, and generally find the whole concept completely destructive to anything resembling and enjoyable gameplay experience.  With all that said, I have no issue with people using the model if they want to use it, or people spending their money on the games if that somehow gives them some for of satisfaction. 

 

What I do have a problem with is the game accepting pre-orders without the pay store being disclosed. That would be like an RPG pitching itself as a single-player RPG, and then a week before its is released the game developers say "Oh hey, by the way, this is an MMO and you have to pay a monthly fee."  There is nothing wrong with MMORPGs, but I feel like that needs to be disclosed before the devs start accepting pre-orders. The same is true with microtransactions. They should be disclosed beforehand, and honestly, there should probably be some sort of logo on games similar to the ESRB rating that lets you know whether the game requires "additional purchases" to play.

Pasanda likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

EA has been doing this thing for a long while, most here probably aren't aware that EA makes $800 million A YEAR in microtransactions just from FIFA alone, with a profit margin on Ultimate Team of nearly 100% since it takes absolutely no effort to add more cards. This is a yearly microtransactions revenue stream from one single game, the equivalent to selling 14 million copies at full $60 retail price. That's the entire lifetime sales of the massively hyped Battefront 1 game. And that's every year, and growing. Think about that, think about how difficult it is to create an IP that sells 14 million copies a year, and think about how easy it is to make a lootbox/cardpack system.

Here is the cold reality:

EA's total digital net revenue for FY2017 was $2.87 billion, of which microtransactions accounted for $1.68 billion. Since the publisher has a massive array of microtransaction and live-service-powered games coming in FY2018, such as FIFA 18, Madden 18, NBA LIVE 18, and NHL 18, the company expects its digital net revenues to increase by 14.63% to $3.29 billion.

Spending on gaming microtransactions hit $71 billion in 2016, EA has a IP here (Star Wars) that will bring in huge number of casual gamers who really don't care about the drama all that much.

EA has already stated that "Battlefront 2 will eventually return to offering the opportunity for players to spend money on accelerators"

They knows that the Tier 1 gamers are the ones who are pissed, and that getting them to quieten down and not scare off the other two tiers is important.

Gaming purchasers can be split into at least three tiers with different spending and gaming preferences:

Tier 1: The so called "hardcore" gamers - This is the consumer who reads multiple reviews, including those from non-mainstream gaming media that tend to be much more critical of games than places like IGN. These consumers follow the development of games, watch Youtube gaming channels that go into detail (think Joseph Anderson, Super Bunnyhop, Jimquisition..etc) and are heavily engaged in gaming as a serious hobby. They also take a deep interest in how games are made, and will seek out "indie gems" in order to support innovative game development. Many tend to favor PC gaming and will spend thousands on high end graphic cards to run games at the very max settings at the highest resolution and fps, although there are plenty of console gamers in this tier as well. They are deeply aware just how insidious the microtransaction lootboxes are, and what a devastating effect they could have for the future of gaming.

Tier 2: This is the general consumer who views games as a fun distraction to engage in, but doesn't take them too seriously. Many play largely because its a social thing, their friends are playing the game and they want to get in on the action. They don't tend to follow developers or the process of game creation, nor do they spend any time thinking about where the industry is going. They are generally aware that microtransactions are not a good thing, but accept them as another charge to their part time hobby and don't think about it beyond that. They will read IGN or Gamespot and a few other big sites, and as long as the score is 7/10 or above they'll think its a good game and go buy it.

Tier 3: The "casual" - This is actually the vast majority of gamers. Many of these purchases will be made by parents for their kids. These people will go out and buy COD and FIFA and Madden and all the other big hitters consistently, without reading any reviews. They generally dislike when games don't give near immediate gratification, which is why games have been consistently getting more and more "streamlined" and offering more shortcuts to victory (the "press F to win" syndrome). They generate tens of billions in microtransaction revenue for mobile gaming, and are perfectly fine in doing so for AAA games too. Their logic is simple: "I pay a few bucks for coffee or a snack bar every day, what's the big deal at spending that a few times to get a new pack in FIFA or a new box in BF2?"

None of these are in any way better than the other, they're just different people with different priorities and budgets.

Hence why EA will let this slide until a bit after Christmas, when Tier 2 and Tier 3 all rush out to buy the game. Before the time they reintroduce the microtransactions, all the Tier 2 and Tier 3 players will be locked in and invested into the game by their time. They will be ready to start paying for "accelerators" by then to push them to the next level. The Tier 1 gamers who thought their boycott will have hurt sales will eventually see that the game sold ten million copies anyway and many will enter, then EA will reintroduce the microtransactions, and they will pretty much be forced to either grind forever or buy lootboxes in order to catch up.

Even if the entire tier 1 boycotts the game, thats a few million copies in sales lost, but it will be more than made up if they can get in Tier 2 and Tier 3 gamers into the gambling addiction of lootboxes.

So what do we do?

We have to reach out to the casual gamer, especially the parents who go out to purchase this game not realize it has gambling components.

Notice how EA immediately responded by shutting down microtransactions when BBC and CNN started talking about gambling? They want to protect their Tier 3 and Tier 2 revenue, because parents respond to hearing their children are playing virtual slots.

 

 

All that said, should a hypothetical movement of angry gamers arise out of the muck and detritus that is the over all community, there are much better things to do with that right now, like fight Net Neutrality, which in my opinion is a much bigger threat to online gaming that EA making money off idiots with pay-to-win play models right now. That's not to diminish this problem, but I can live without EA games. That's not something I can say about having to pay $100 more a month because I hog bandwidth playing something online.

 

Edited by Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0