EA tells investors turning off Battlefront 2's microtransactions will not affect earnings
67 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52903735]lootcrates tend to affect the core of the game design and you'd be a fool to think otherwise
[/QUOTE]
Not if they make them cosmetic only.
Though I doubt they will.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52903745]well yeah man you literally cant spend a cent rn because they disabled it
its cool if youre having fun but soon theyll take something you dont like and all of the sudden you'll understand why people are mad about stuff like this[/QUOTE]
I played when you could spend money and likely during the highest whale density (when everyone playing had bought the deluxe/the trial) and I didn't have any problem with whales fucking my butt.
I agree that what they WERE doing is pretty shit, but they're literally a corporation that exists ONLY to make money, so if they promise free DLC then I find it totally normal that they add a grindy lootcrate system to make up for it. You had to grind in BF4, BF3, BF1, all their games to get super great anyway, and in BF4 you could even buy shortcuts.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903759]and in BF4 you could even buy shortcuts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the weapons were, mostly, balanced. Buying the shotcut didn't make you invincible.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;52903765]Yeah, but the weapons were, mostly, balanced. Buying the shotcut didn't make you invincible.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but in this game if you spend enough time anyone can get the credits necessary to buy all sorts of crates for cards. In BF4 you could get stuff like APS which literally made your tank invincible compared to people who didn't have it. In BF2 there are SOME cards that make you maybe 50% better at something, but generally they are just little perks like in CoD or buffs that generally don't matter if the enemies just shoot you 1 extra time.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903786]Well yeah, but in this game if you spend enough time anyone can get the credits necessary to buy all sorts of crates for cards. In BF4 you could get stuff like APS which literally made your tank invincible compared to people who didn't have it. In BF2 there are SOME cards that make you maybe 50% better at something, but generally they are just little perks like in CoD or buffs that generally don't matter if the enemies just shoot you 1 extra time.[/QUOTE]
Fully upgraded Vader, depending on the cards can have a shit ton of health and nearly impossible to kill.
it's funny that ea would still be swimming in money if they didn't include this crap from the getgo
now they're fucked :D
People who insist that mandatory DLC, microtransactions, and lootboxes are necessary for a $60 title to make its money back are full of shit.
Any production, and I do mean any production, whose total budget is projected at $60,000,000 only requires one million in worldwide sales to recoup its costs and make even for the developer, accounting for price adjustments and VAT. In EA's scenario, they're selling you everything directly through Origin and digital console markets; they don't even need to go through a retailer and compensate for it if they wanted to.
And these blockbuster titles that the lot of big name publishers are producing for the market tend to land their revenue before taxes in the [I]hundreds of millions of dollars[/I] as early as the first day alone. They don't need to be backed by whales to suck dry through vile gambling schemes, they already make enough damn money to justify five more productions of an equal budget for the same year just by this one game.
The numbers just don't add up. Putting a high price tag on the purchase alone and then expecting the players to pay you every step on the way through the playing experience is well beyond vulture capitalism, it's straight up [I]banditism[/I]. There is no reason to justify this, and every person involved in defending these garbage practices is either an idiot being played or is the one playing idiots.
[QUOTE=croguy;52903821]People who insist that mandatory DLC, microtransactions, and lootboxes are necessary for a $60 title to make its money back are full of shit.
Any production, and I do mean any production, whose total budget is projected at $60,000,000 only requires one million in worldwide sales to recoup its costs and make even for the developer, accounting for price adjustments and VAT. In EA's scenario, they're selling you everything directly through Origin and digital console markets; they don't even need to go through a retailer and compensate for it if they wanted to.
And these blockbuster titles that the lot of big name publishers are producing for the market tend to land their revenue before taxes in the [I]hundreds of millions of dollars[/I] as early as the first day alone. They don't need to be backed by whales to suck dry through vile gambling schemes, they already make enough damn money to justify five more productions of an equal budget for the same year just by this one game.
The numbers just don't add up. Putting a high price tag on the purchase alone and then expecting the players to pay you every step on the way through the playing experience is well beyond vulture capitalism, it's straight up [I]banditism[/I]. There is no reason to justify this, and every person involved in defending these garbage practices is either an idiot being played or is the one playing idiots.[/QUOTE]
I got your reason: it's called capitalism. The whole point of corporations is to make profit for their shareholders. I'd say they "have no choice" but they probably like it.
[QUOTE=Amplar;52903819]it's funny that ea would still be swimming in money if they didn't include this crap from the getgo
now they're fucked :D[/QUOTE]
Just remember how much good publicity Battlefront 2 got from announcing no season pass and free DLC in the first place (Without knowing about the horrible practices that would replace them) they already had a sale from me at that point, if they hadn't gone the route that they have now as a replacement and the game had came out without the microtransaction mobile phone bullshit infecting it, with a normal progression system and free DLC to come? This game would have blown people away and probably would have broke sales records.
[QUOTE=Amplar;52903819]it's funny that ea would still be swimming in money if they didn't include this crap from the getgo
now they're fucked :D[/QUOTE]
I think this game will still have them turning a sizable profit.
However all this has fucked them over for future games, and put their relationship with disney under fire.
[editline]18th November 2017[/editline]
Best case tho is that this game makes even less than 2015 battlefront.
[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;52903841]I think this game will still have them turning a sizable profit.
However all this has fucked them over for future games, and put their relationship with disney under fire.
[editline]18th November 2017[/editline]
Best case tho is that this game makes even less than 2015 battlefront.[/QUOTE]
I think people are underestimating just how much high profile the backlash has been this time round. With even mainstream news networks covering the story, I think there's a high chance it's going to have a meaningful impact on their sales.
[editline].[/editline]
[QUOTE=jonu67;52903860]Don't forget Disney itself getting pissed off.[/QUOTE]
This too. The House of Mouse isn't going to take kindly to EA giving them bad press to deal with.
[QUOTE=Blueleaf;52903857]I think people are underestimating just how much high profile the backlash has been this time round. With even mainstream news networks covering the story, I think there's a high chance it's going to have a meaningful impact on their sales.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget Disney itself getting pissed off.
I'll drop this here
[url]https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/17/star-wars-battlefront-ii-almost-had-way-more-overwatch-style-hero-skins/[/url]
It is related to crates and stuff.
[editline]18th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=jonu67;52903860]Don't forget Disney itself getting pissed off.[/QUOTE]
Allegedly Disney/LucasFilm is the reason the boxes are not Cosmetic only.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903832]I got your reason: it's called capitalism. The whole point of corporations is to make profit for their shareholders. I'd say they "have no choice" but they probably like it.[/QUOTE]
I think you may have missed the past five decades of gaming and the past three centuries of gambling being restricted.
[editline]a[/editline]
Spoiler: videogames haven't been like this.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;52903865]
Allegedly Disney/LucasFilm is the reason the boxes are not Cosmetic only.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to make the assumption that the reason they did that was because they didn't want anything uncanonical, Disney are seemingly more anal over the Star Wars universe than Lucas ever was.
Which is both a good thing and a bad thing in some respects.
[QUOTE=Blueleaf;52903857]I think people are underestimating just how much high profile the backlash has been this time round. With even mainstream news networks covering the story, I think there's a high chance it's going to have a meaningful impact on their sales.[/QUOTE]
It'll have an impact definitely, EA won't make as much as they originally planned, however the game just has to sell a few million to break even or make a profit (hard to say with how closed doors game costs are). This backlash happened too close to release for people to try and cancel their preorders and for those million who haven't seen the backlash or for those who simply ignore it/think of it as no big deal.
Even so, I'm more curious about the future, both of this game's longevity, and EA's future shitstorms
[QUOTE=jonu67;52903873]I'm going to make the assumption that the reason they did that was canonical, Disney are seemingly more anal over the Star Wars universe than Lucas ever was.
Which is both a good thing and a bad thing in some respects.[/QUOTE]
The article says it was specifically someone from LucasFilm that requested it, not Disney.
Since LucasFilm makes all those kinds of decisions, it was probably them.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52903873]I'd like to assume that the reason they did that was canonical reasons, Disney are seemingly more anal over the Star Wars universe than Lucas ever was.
Which is both a good thing and a bad thing in some respects.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Lucasfilm gaming boss Douglas Reilly told me during a conversation this week that canon isn’t a concern when it comes to what goes into a loot box. So that’s probably not the problem.[/QUOTE]
Though it's worth noting said article only has "some insider sources told me this, promise" to go on so I'd be a little cautious until anything else comes to light.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;52903878]The article says it was specifically someone from LucasFilm that requested it, not Disney.[/QUOTE]
LucasFilm are practically Disney at this point.
[QUOTE=Blueleaf;52903881]Though it's worth noting said article only has "some insider sources told me this, promise" to go on so I'd be a little cautious until anything else comes to light.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that is why I said 'Allegedly'
[editline]18th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=jonu67;52903883]LucasFilm are practically Disney at this point.[/QUOTE]
They still have their own staff, and are largely independent decision makers.
LucasFilm, according to the story group, makes all the story decisions.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;52903885]They still have their own staff, and are largely independent.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying the people under EA have their own staff and are largely independent.
It honestly doesn't really matter though, it's practically hearsay at this point.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903832]I got your reason: it's called capitalism. The whole point of corporations is to make profit for their shareholders. I'd say they "have no choice" but they probably like it.[/QUOTE]
You can make money and not be a scum sucking piece of shit. You can make money, and not attempt to rape your consumers wallets every chance you get. Capitalism is NOT an excuse.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52903889]That's like saying the people under EA have their own staff and are largely independent.
[/QUOTE]
The difference here is Disney and LucasFilm have both said it.
Disney is very hands off according to Kathleen.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903832]I got your reason: it's called capitalism. The whole point of corporations is to make profit for their shareholders. I'd say they "have no choice" but they probably like it.[/QUOTE]
Gee, almost like we don't have games and development houses doing well with more ethical business models. Path of Exile, Grinding Gear Games' brainchild, has been entirely funded on ethical microtransactions, because it's both a good product (one would say THE best action rpg around, rivaled only by Grim Dawn) and because their fanbase feel obligated to support a good developer who doesn't nickel and dime them like soulless huge publishing houses.
Personally, the majority of AAA titles are overpriced garbage whose majority of ideas can go back to the bottom of the beer bottles they were spawned from, and even good ideas in theory get terribly implemented in practice. There's no creativity, no risk, and certainly not even trying to tread well trod ground properly to please the fan base, witness the dumpster fire that was Mass Erect Andromeda, which also resulted in the shutdown of Bioware Montreal, iirc, as a direct result.
An even better example would be the fiasco of Diablo 3, with Rob Tardo recently coming out to say "fans' expectations dumpstered Diablo 3", after reading how viciously its players, as well as others, keep tearing into it on a regular basis, in addition to unfavorable comparisons to better games, instead of owning up that it was a pile of hot garbage compared to both its predecessors. Even Jay "Fuck that loser!!!" Wilson eventually admitted his ideas were bad and made the game bad.
there's only so long you can keep cheating your customers by putting out garbage titles, nickel and diming them with microtransactions in a paid game, and then trying to make the customer look bad by treating them like children who have no idea about game design. Well let me give it straight: if a bunch of Kiwis could create a product as good as PoE on the basis of a home loan mortgage, AAA companies have no excuses for not being creative enough to use that money they're sitting on to try and take a risk to make a good game, instead of cheating their loyal fan bases.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903786]Well yeah, but in this game if you spend enough time anyone can get the credits necessary to buy all sorts of crates for cards. In BF4 you could get stuff like APS which literally made your tank invincible compared to people who didn't have it. In BF2 there are SOME cards that make you maybe 50% better at something, but generally they are just little perks like in CoD or buffs that generally don't matter if the enemies just shoot you 1 extra time.[/QUOTE]
Did you miss that it takes [I]over 4000 hours[/I] of gameplay in order to get to a point where other players can't get advantages over you because you don't have a certain star card?
This whole thing of "They need income to keep supporting their game, you can't expect anything for free!" is just absolutely stupid. You're looking at it from [I]your[/I] perspective of getting it for "free"...that doesn't mean EA gets nothing from it. Continued support for multiplayer games keeps the playerbase playing, thus keeping them interested in the series overall and extending the sales the game gets over a long period of time.
It isn't just a case of "They get nothing after the initial sales window!", microtranscations are not in any way needed for either the developer or the playerbase to keep supporting the game, they'll still get sales as long as the game is good and/or popular. As a good example...Battlefront 2015 sold over 14million copies in a few months. So no, it isn't a case of them updating the game for "Free" when doing so likely gives them exactly what they want; more money.
You also seem to be missing that this very article discussed here outright means that they don't need these microtransactions to support the game, as they're still going to support it despite now having no microtranscations.
[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;52903235]Oh wow, this is peak bullshit. They're lying to the investors now LOL[/QUOTE]
Or they're just going to charge for the map packs now
[QUOTE=TheTalon;52904424]Or they're just going to charge for the map packs now[/QUOTE]
I don't think they can back down from that promise now. No season pass and free post-launch DLC was one of the big positives everyone was talking about when the game was first announced, if they change their mind now it's only going to cause even more backlash, and EA is not in a position where they afford to do that anymore.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52903786]Well yeah, but in this game if you spend enough time anyone can get the credits necessary to buy all sorts of crates for cards. In BF4 you could get stuff like APS which literally made your tank invincible compared to people who didn't have it. In BF2 there are SOME cards that make you maybe 50% better at something, but generally they are just little perks like in CoD or buffs that generally don't matter if the enemies just shoot you 1 extra time.[/QUOTE]
The difference is you unlocked the MPS with 80,000 or 90,000 class score. Score depends on your skill, not necessarily time played. and 90,000 isn't that much.
To unlock everything without paying in Battlefront 2 it will take 2.25 years at 40 hours a week...
Like, if they release Battlefront 3 with the same amount of time between it and BF2, as there was between BF2015 and Battlefront 2, and you played BF2 every single week for 40 fucking hours, you still wouldn't have everything unlocked by the time BF3 released, and there isn't even that much to unlock.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;52903578]Cheaper.[/QUOTE]
maybe thats the problem
extremely overinflated development costs
its not wages, nintendo is in tokyo which is way way way more expensive than stockholm (where i believe DICE is situated)
Yeah even got IGN panning it for micro transactions, a website that has zero integrity usually. No one really wants to see AAA gaming turned into mobile games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.