Star Wars Battlefront II or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and the Love the Loot Box - Michael Bitt

1246789

Comments

  • AsheramAsheram Member RarePosts: 2,560
    I did not post that gif 3x this site is borked. I posted that over an hour ago and viewed it normal on several occasions since as normal now its 3x posted.

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,892


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Torval



  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYMember RarePosts: 2,165
    Asheram said:
    I did not post that gif 3x this site is borked. I posted that over an hour ago and viewed it normal on several occasions since as normal now its 3x posted.
    I thought you were just really emphasising the GIF lol

    My adult gaming and mods website (various games, adult mods, screenshots, stories and other games I play(ed) 

    http://nsfwgaming.wixsite.com/adultgamingandmods

    And my Youtube channel (for nature/relaxation/meditation videos)

    https://www.youtube.com/user/Vendayn


  • AsheramAsheram Member RarePosts: 2,560
    Asheram said:
    I did not post that gif 3x this site is borked. I posted that over an hour ago and viewed it normal on several occasions since as normal now its 3x posted.
    I thought you were just really emphasising the GIF lol
    No lol sorry, I tried to get it to work 3x when still editing and it wasnt showing in preview and then finally got it to work. Then when I notIced it I amended the original post and somehow also made a new post as marked by the one with a period only in it.

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,203
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Did you actually read the whole post and the linked analysis article? It was estimated that they needed to make $400M in sales to recoup their money.  That included things like the licensing fees, development costs, marketing, retailers etc...

    They sold $650M as of the end of 2015.  As the article says at the end:
    EA has made bank and enough to pay for several $100 million projects based on the profit they've garnered from Battlefront alone.

    And that was just with a box fee.  So yes... just a box fee can in fact cover the cost of development in the 21st century... as well as the cost of the license, marketing, retailers etc...  with hundreds of millions in profits.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,892
    edited October 13
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Did you actually read the whole post and the linked analysis article? It was estimated that they needed to make $400M in sales to recoup their money.  That included things like the licensing fees, development costs, marketing, retailers etc...

    They sold $650M as of the end of 2015.  As the article says at the end:
    EA has made bank and enough to pay for several $100 million projects based on the profit they've garnered from Battlefront alone.

    And that was just with a box fee.  So yes... just a box fee can in fact cover the cost of development in the 21st century... as well as the cost of the license, marketing, retailers etc...  with hundreds of millions in profits.

    I'm not talking about recouping money, And I said just that.

    edit: and by your answer you've never worked in a large corporation.
    Post edited by Sovrath on
    Torval



  • TheDarkrayneTheDarkrayne UKMember RarePosts: 3,224
    edited October 13
    Right, hold on.

    This has gone way off course in some earlier comments. 

    Are people really suggesting that because there are already problems with fairness in competitive games that it's OK for that to be exploited officially? Instead of it being considered cheating?

    Fuck it, there's loads of murderers out there in real life. Might as well officially implement a bounty hunter system into every economy where you can pay the government for the rights to kill someone. You know... since it's already happening...

    The hell is wrong with you people?
    Post edited by TheDarkrayne on
    BruceYeeHerase
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,448
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Did you actually read the whole post and the linked analysis article? It was estimated that they needed to make $400M in sales to recoup their money.  That included things like the licensing fees, development costs, marketing, retailers etc...

    They sold $650M as of the end of 2015.  As the article says at the end:
    EA has made bank and enough to pay for several $100 million projects based on the profit they've garnered from Battlefront alone.

    And that was just with a box fee.  So yes... just a box fee can in fact cover the cost of development in the 21st century... as well as the cost of the license, marketing, retailers etc...  with hundreds of millions in profits.

    I'm not talking about recouping money, And I said just that.

    edit: and by your answer you've never worked in a large corporation.
    To be fair, neither is he Sovrath. 

    He happens to be the only person who's offered any kind of analysis on a comparable product, too.  I would suggest, if you and Torval would like to continue debating, you might provide something other than your own opinion supported by the circular logic of "they're doing this to make more money, so they must simply NEED to make more money".

    There are other comparable products that's aren't offering power items in lootboxes, either.  Overwatch immediately comes to mind, and it didn't even have one of the most popular IPs ever created behind it.

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,203
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Did you actually read the whole post and the linked analysis article? It was estimated that they needed to make $400M in sales to recoup their money.  That included things like the licensing fees, development costs, marketing, retailers etc...

    They sold $650M as of the end of 2015.  As the article says at the end:
    EA has made bank and enough to pay for several $100 million projects based on the profit they've garnered from Battlefront alone.

    And that was just with a box fee.  So yes... just a box fee can in fact cover the cost of development in the 21st century... as well as the cost of the license, marketing, retailers etc...  with hundreds of millions in profits.

    I'm not talking about recouping money, And I said just that.

    edit: and by your answer you've never worked in a large corporation.
    You're right... I'm only a Director for the 5th biggest transportation company in the world. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Is yours bigger than mine? Does that make a difference?

    The person I responded to said "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century". Thats  utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.  Game had a $50M budget and sold $650M as of the end of 2015. Factor in all the costs plus a very healthy margin and they still "made bank".

    IselinMadFrenchie

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,451
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Did you actually read the whole post and the linked analysis article? It was estimated that they needed to make $400M in sales to recoup their money.  That included things like the licensing fees, development costs, marketing, retailers etc...

    They sold $650M as of the end of 2015.  As the article says at the end:
    EA has made bank and enough to pay for several $100 million projects based on the profit they've garnered from Battlefront alone.

    And that was just with a box fee.  So yes... just a box fee can in fact cover the cost of development in the 21st century... as well as the cost of the license, marketing, retailers etc...  with hundreds of millions in profits.

    I'm not talking about recouping money, And I said just that.

    edit: and by your answer you've never worked in a large corporation.
    I would add to your points: The revenue from successful products pays for the risky ventures that failed and cost money. They pay for non-revenue generating divisions like support and HR, subsidize research and development of new products, and support infrastructure. It really shouldn't have to be said but I guess it does.

    Maybe they are being greedy but that's a personal judgement and if someone doesn't want to support that, well good for them. I've not played MMOs because I don't like how their revenue model. I've skipped games I think are too expensive, but that's because I didn't see the value in them. If I want to play Battlefront 2 or any other game I'm not going to let that stand in my way though. That's self-affliction to spite myself.
    SpottyGekko
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCMember EpicPosts: 4,840
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    I understand it perfectly

    These companies have a million screaming stockholders all crying for more. Like everything else, they are overvalued and if they don't show significant gains year over year, people will park their money somewhere else. Every year those gains get harder and harder to make and maintain. Now they've stooped to:

    IselinRealizerSlapshot1188

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    Boy, I sho is glad I is a lowly working pleb with no knows about them there investment thingies 'cause if I wasn't, I'd have to act all happy about bending over.
    Slapshot1188
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,448
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:


    Mark my words...  you will be paying by the hour at some point down the road.  Not for Battlefront 2... but for some game. (I'd actually rather that than the stupid lootboxes to be honest, but the sad part is that they will STILL have the lootboxes.. plus the box fee.)

    But to go back to your "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century" comment.  that's utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.



    Well box fees don't cover what the company "needs to make". I'm not sure why some of you guys can't understand this but it's not about "covering development". Or at least "solely covering development". I mean, do anyone of you actually work in larger companies?

    I find it hard to believe you all work in small mom and pop businesses.

    don't you have "local conversations" or regular announcements on what the company expects to make that fiscal year?

    Publicly traded companies (for the umpteenth time squared) set their projections on what they need/want to make. They have to make this. Why? Because it's "your money" (the investors) that they are trying to make. If they don't make these projections then it's their stock price going down.

    If you have ever invested in a company you do this to "make money".

    You want to buy games from publicly traded companies? Then this is what happens. That's it, so predictable, nothing has changed from years ago. They will always find a way to maximize profits. Always.

    Are there better ways to make these goals? maybe. Don't know.

    As far as paying by the hour, it used to be that online games were paid by the hour so "yeah" full circle I suppose in an odd sort of way.
    Did you actually read the whole post and the linked analysis article? It was estimated that they needed to make $400M in sales to recoup their money.  That included things like the licensing fees, development costs, marketing, retailers etc...

    They sold $650M as of the end of 2015.  As the article says at the end:
    EA has made bank and enough to pay for several $100 million projects based on the profit they've garnered from Battlefront alone.

    And that was just with a box fee.  So yes... just a box fee can in fact cover the cost of development in the 21st century... as well as the cost of the license, marketing, retailers etc...  with hundreds of millions in profits.

    I'm not talking about recouping money, And I said just that.

    edit: and by your answer you've never worked in a large corporation.
    You're right... I'm only a Director for the 5th biggest transportation company in the world. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Is yours bigger than mine? Does that make a difference?

    The person I responded to said "apparently box fees don't cover the cost of development in the 21st century". Thats  utter bullshit as proven by the factual numbers.  Game had a $50M budget and sold $650M as of the end of 2015. Factor in all the costs plus a very healthy margin and they still "made bank".

    It seems much more likely, to me, that they've seen success in other genres utilizing such lootboxes and simply wished to make extra cash off of that technique without sacrificing anything on the front-end box price that has been their modus operandi for decades.

    I don't think "need" of any sort really entered into the decision, unless you count making even more money than you were already poised to make from the release box revenue itself a "need".  I have a hard time believing the lootbox revenue was a make or break situation for EA or anyone else involved.
    Slapshot1188

    image
  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,478
    Gotta pay the bills somehow!
    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • XodicXodic RealityMember RarePosts: 672
    edited October 13
    So many awesome posts here, but the actual article isn't one of them.


    MikeB said:


    Gorwe said:

    How much did they pay you to say that? Or are you just being a contrarian for the sake of it?



    Be honest, earn some respect.


    Pay me to say what? That I prefer crates to the convoluted progression systems in other Battlefield games? Yeah, I'd rather have things be a simple stupid RNG box than have to do obnoxious assignments and level up 30 different things.
    ...



    So the old Battlefield game deigns were so bad, you would've been willing to pay them in order to not have to play it, and this new Battlefield game design is so good, that you'll pay them to not have to play it.

    I'm a simpleton, Mike. You'll have to explain it to me.
    Post edited by Xodic on
  • RealizerRealizer Member RarePosts: 669
    Torval said:
    Realizer said:
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    ... but apparently box fees don't cover the costs of development in the 21st Century...

    I would like to see definitive proof that this is the case in a B2P game. The thought that all these extras are necessary to cover the cost is at the root of the casual acceptance by gamers of these business models.

    IMO it's just an imported concept from the F2P world where, the argument can clearly be made that they are needed. It helps to rationalize their inclusion in games where the same argument makes no sense.

    Until I see proof (and fat chance any of them will open their books enough to prove it,) I'm looking at all of these as extra profit, not as covering the cost of development.
    Nothing is that cleanly defined that it can easily and simply be divided into binary categories. Roget couldn't even do it and he was brilliant.

    How much a business considers necessary to justify production, development, or an expense is subjective. My point is they consider it necessary to return an amount of revenue. They can do that through broader sales, tiered sales (what they're doing now or with DLC), or fewer sales at a higher pricepoint. What is going to maximize revenue? You'll never get a consistent answer between publishers or games within a publisher. EA might have different expectations and budgets for different titles.

    So of course it's extra profit. Saying it covers the cost of development is more likely alluding to the product returning the expected revenue not as a specific budget item. I agree that it's not simply something to cover the budget, but rather a key component in a more complicated revenue projection.
    Of course. But the statement "cover the cost" in common everyday discussions carries with it an implication of "breaking even" to most people that see it. And that is either deliberately or inadvertently misleading.

    It shouldn't be used synonymously with "cover the projected target revenue" the way it often is here.

    I mean... don't you see the irony in the fact that this sort of thing was extremely rare in B2P games 10 or 20 years ago when the box sales numbers were a fraction of what they are today? Now they are pulling in a lot more from just general up front sales and microtransactions are everywhere in B2P games.

    Something tells me this is all about "greed is good" where no ROI is ever too obscene. It kind of reminds me of banks with transaction fees... covering the cost? :)
    Look I don't want argue semantics about how words or phrases should be used or how I could better have stated a point. Let me clarify, "Apparently, the box fee and DLC streams are perceived as revenue restraining by EA. The costs of development have increased over the past three decades while retail fees have not kept pace with both cost and inflation. Therefore in order to increase the profit margin and make development product development more viable publishers like EA are source multiple revenue streams in order to maximize profit and reduce the risk and instability of any single stream." That is my perception.

    The industry has not quite yet figured out how to market and sell their products the best way. They're still trying to lower the barrier of entry and maximize revenue per person while still keeping players interested and engaged in their game.

    The problem of DLC, expansions, and Season Passes fragmenting game communities is real. MMOs suffer from this horribly and everyone seems to either be ignoring the problem or discounting this as a factor for attrition.

    Obsidian considers this such an important topic that they've recently provided a public survey to try and understand their demographic more accurately. It also signals, to me, that they're still figuring this out. This is a studio with industry veterans with experience going back to the earliest days of the industry and they still are working through it. That coupled with the constant experimentation and shifting of monetizing methods says to me no one has arrived at an answer.

    Greed is never good whether it's in the love and pursuit of wealth or by being a miser. I'm not advocating that. There are two halves of the greedy coin and in these threads I don't think the publisher is the only entity sporting greedy entitlement.
      Okay I think many of us here understand that developers need to pay their employees, people don't work for free etc. The problem here is an obvious lack of design forethought and in game systems, to push out a "Star Wars" product to cash in revenue ahead of the new movie. 

      I would all be aboard with pre-order and all if there had been any sort of creativity involved in this monetization and progression model. They are just cramming everything into these single loot crates, instead of coming up with something at least interesting. Especially since they involve power items. 

      To me it seems like they took the easy way out to throw out a product knowing it will only last till the movie hype dies.  Lack of effort and potential longevity don't bode confidence in would be buyers/players. 
    So what other interesting thing could they do to make more money. That is what the goal is. Simply dropping the revenue stream isn't an option. What is the better way they can recoup that loss if it's removed?

    If it were your business how would you do it? What would you do to make up that loss while still keeping player counts up and fragmentation down?
     Make cool things, and design features that people will want to pay for. If you can't do that, your game doesn't deserve to make money. That's called the free market, welcome to capitalism. 

     If you want to get loads of money from people you need to give them a reason. If it's boring and unrewarding prepare to fail. Simple imo. 

     In other words I don't need to make suggestions, I'm not trying to get any money from anyone.
  • KickaxeKickaxe CanadaMember UncommonPosts: 141
    Torval said:
    I would add to your points: The revenue from successful products pays for the risky ventures that failed and cost money. They pay for non-revenue generating divisions like support and HR, subsidize research and development of new products, and support infrastructure. It really shouldn't have to be said but I guess it does.

    Maybe they are being greedy but that's a personal judgement and if someone doesn't want to support that, well good for them. I've not played MMOs because I don't like how their revenue model. I've skipped games I think are too expensive, but that's because I didn't see the value in them. If I want to play Battlefront 2 or any other game I'm not going to let that stand in my way though. That's self-affliction to spite myself. [emphasis added]
    So you can advocate for the consumer perspective, or you can advocate for the stockholder/corporation perspective. It's arbitrary because we lack the information to be significantly objective on this topic. Maybe you're shooting for a balance, but I'm not seeing it.

    Paid power progression? I'm sure you would be forgiven for erring on the side of the consumer.

    Of course, as you said, you can define value as you see fit; but I think many of us are questioning the future ramifications of letting such practices pass without a fight. Defining value becomes abundantly more difficult when we start looking long term.
    IselinMadFrenchielaseritSlapshot1188
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,451
    Realizer said:
    Torval said:
    Realizer said:
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    ... but apparently box fees don't cover the costs of development in the 21st Century...

    I would like to see definitive proof that this is the case in a B2P game. The thought that all these extras are necessary to cover the cost is at the root of the casual acceptance by gamers of these business models.

    IMO it's just an imported concept from the F2P world where, the argument can clearly be made that they are needed. It helps to rationalize their inclusion in games where the same argument makes no sense.

    Until I see proof (and fat chance any of them will open their books enough to prove it,) I'm looking at all of these as extra profit, not as covering the cost of development.
    Nothing is that cleanly defined that it can easily and simply be divided into binary categories. Roget couldn't even do it and he was brilliant.

    How much a business considers necessary to justify production, development, or an expense is subjective. My point is they consider it necessary to return an amount of revenue. They can do that through broader sales, tiered sales (what they're doing now or with DLC), or fewer sales at a higher pricepoint. What is going to maximize revenue? You'll never get a consistent answer between publishers or games within a publisher. EA might have different expectations and budgets for different titles.

    So of course it's extra profit. Saying it covers the cost of development is more likely alluding to the product returning the expected revenue not as a specific budget item. I agree that it's not simply something to cover the budget, but rather a key component in a more complicated revenue projection.
    Of course. But the statement "cover the cost" in common everyday discussions carries with it an implication of "breaking even" to most people that see it. And that is either deliberately or inadvertently misleading.

    It shouldn't be used synonymously with "cover the projected target revenue" the way it often is here.

    I mean... don't you see the irony in the fact that this sort of thing was extremely rare in B2P games 10 or 20 years ago when the box sales numbers were a fraction of what they are today? Now they are pulling in a lot more from just general up front sales and microtransactions are everywhere in B2P games.

    Something tells me this is all about "greed is good" where no ROI is ever too obscene. It kind of reminds me of banks with transaction fees... covering the cost? :)
    Look I don't want argue semantics about how words or phrases should be used or how I could better have stated a point. Let me clarify, "Apparently, the box fee and DLC streams are perceived as revenue restraining by EA. The costs of development have increased over the past three decades while retail fees have not kept pace with both cost and inflation. Therefore in order to increase the profit margin and make development product development more viable publishers like EA are source multiple revenue streams in order to maximize profit and reduce the risk and instability of any single stream." That is my perception.

    The industry has not quite yet figured out how to market and sell their products the best way. They're still trying to lower the barrier of entry and maximize revenue per person while still keeping players interested and engaged in their game.

    The problem of DLC, expansions, and Season Passes fragmenting game communities is real. MMOs suffer from this horribly and everyone seems to either be ignoring the problem or discounting this as a factor for attrition.

    Obsidian considers this such an important topic that they've recently provided a public survey to try and understand their demographic more accurately. It also signals, to me, that they're still figuring this out. This is a studio with industry veterans with experience going back to the earliest days of the industry and they still are working through it. That coupled with the constant experimentation and shifting of monetizing methods says to me no one has arrived at an answer.

    Greed is never good whether it's in the love and pursuit of wealth or by being a miser. I'm not advocating that. There are two halves of the greedy coin and in these threads I don't think the publisher is the only entity sporting greedy entitlement.
      Okay I think many of us here understand that developers need to pay their employees, people don't work for free etc. The problem here is an obvious lack of design forethought and in game systems, to push out a "Star Wars" product to cash in revenue ahead of the new movie. 

      I would all be aboard with pre-order and all if there had been any sort of creativity involved in this monetization and progression model. They are just cramming everything into these single loot crates, instead of coming up with something at least interesting. Especially since they involve power items. 

      To me it seems like they took the easy way out to throw out a product knowing it will only last till the movie hype dies.  Lack of effort and potential longevity don't bode confidence in would be buyers/players. 
    So what other interesting thing could they do to make more money. That is what the goal is. Simply dropping the revenue stream isn't an option. What is the better way they can recoup that loss if it's removed?

    If it were your business how would you do it? What would you do to make up that loss while still keeping player counts up and fragmentation down?
     Make cool things, and design features that people will want to pay for. If you can't do that, your game doesn't deserve to make money. That's called the free market, welcome to capitalism. 

     If you want to get loads of money from people you need to give them a reason. If it's boring and unrewarding prepare to fail. Simple imo. 

     In other words I don't need to make suggestions, I'm not trying to get any money from anyone.
    They are making things people buy. That's part of the uproar. People buy them. They don't buy what they don't want.

    You should be making suggestions because you don't like how they're selling. Loot crates generate enough revenue that you're being outvoted. If you want something better then maybe suggest something specific, or just play another game like Battlefield 1 if you don't want to deal with it. I'm not suggesting you should keep playing and put up with it if you bothers you. But if you like the game and want to keep playing but want to pay for it another way then pragmatic suggestions make sense.
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,451
    Kickaxe said:
    Torval said:
    I would add to your points: The revenue from successful products pays for the risky ventures that failed and cost money. They pay for non-revenue generating divisions like support and HR, subsidize research and development of new products, and support infrastructure. It really shouldn't have to be said but I guess it does.

    Maybe they are being greedy but that's a personal judgement and if someone doesn't want to support that, well good for them. I've not played MMOs because I don't like how their revenue model. I've skipped games I think are too expensive, but that's because I didn't see the value in them. If I want to play Battlefront 2 or any other game I'm not going to let that stand in my way though. That's self-affliction to spite myself. [emphasis added]
    So you can advocate for the consumer perspective, or you can advocate for the stockholder/corporation perspective. It's arbitrary because we lack the information to be significantly objective on this topic. Maybe you're shooting for a balance, but I'm not seeing it.

    Paid power progression? I'm sure you would be forgiven for erring on the side of the consumer.

    Of course, as you said, you can define value as you see fit; but I think many of us are questioning the future ramifications of letting such practices pass without a fight. Defining value becomes abundantly more difficult when we start looking long term.
    Or I can not advocate for anything. I'm not trying to convince you of anything but this. Games are getting more expensive. They're going to pass on that target revenue to the consumer in some way.

    Be realistic about it. If that means playing something else or some other hobby then so be it. How they're chopping it up and selling it right now isn't a deal breaker. I may prefer another way, in this case I actually don't, but that preference isn't going to stop me from playing. It's why I can still play ESO and SWTOR even though both have loot crates and essentially mandatory subscriptions for all but the most casual player. I just want to buy the game, but that's now how it's being sold so I don't get to buy it how I want. I get to buy it how they're offering it.

    Their greed, or lack of it, isn't my concern. How much profit they've made doesn't matter either. How much is the game going to cost me to play? Is the way it's packaged and sold a problem? Am I having fun and does that feel like a value for the money they want? Those are the things that matter.

    As far as DLC vs loot crates, in this instance loot crates actually make more sense. I think fragmentation is a problem. I think it's a huge problem for MMOs and it's not given the attention it needs. In a game focused on cooperative play like this it makes sense to reduce that as much as possible.

    And please, paid power progression is almost every mmo ever. Progression doesn't happen in an mmo without handing over money.

    So have fun with whatever choices you make and games you play.
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • KickaxeKickaxe CanadaMember UncommonPosts: 141
    Torval said:
    Kickaxe said:
    Torval said:
    I would add to your points: The revenue from successful products pays for the risky ventures that failed and cost money. They pay for non-revenue generating divisions like support and HR, subsidize research and development of new products, and support infrastructure. It really shouldn't have to be said but I guess it does.

    Maybe they are being greedy but that's a personal judgement and if someone doesn't want to support that, well good for them. I've not played MMOs because I don't like how their revenue model. I've skipped games I think are too expensive, but that's because I didn't see the value in them. If I want to play Battlefront 2 or any other game I'm not going to let that stand in my way though. That's self-affliction to spite myself. [emphasis added]
    So you can advocate for the consumer perspective, or you can advocate for the stockholder/corporation perspective. It's arbitrary because we lack the information to be significantly objective on this topic. Maybe you're shooting for a balance, but I'm not seeing it.

    Paid power progression? I'm sure you would be forgiven for erring on the side of the consumer.

    Of course, as you said, you can define value as you see fit; but I think many of us are questioning the future ramifications of letting such practices pass without a fight. Defining value becomes abundantly more difficult when we start looking long term.
    Or I can not advocate for anything. I'm not trying to convince you of anything but this. Games are getting more expensive. They're going to pass on that target revenue to the consumer in some way.

    Be realistic about it. If that means playing something else or some other hobby then so be it. How they're chopping it up and selling it right now isn't a deal breaker. I may prefer another way, in this case I actually don't, but that preference isn't going to stop me from playing. It's why I can still play ESO and SWTOR even though both have loot crates and essentially mandatory subscriptions for all but the most casual player. I just want to buy the game, but that's now how it's being sold so I don't get to buy it how I want. I get to buy it how they're offering it.

    Their greed, or lack of it, isn't my concern. How much profit they've made doesn't matter either. How much is the game going to cost me to play? Is the way it's packaged and sold a problem? Am I having fun and does that feel like a value for the money they want? Those are the things that matter.

    As far as DLC vs loot crates, in this instance loot crates actually make more sense. I think fragmentation is a problem. I think it's a huge problem for MMOs and it's not given the attention it needs. In a game focused on cooperative play like this it makes sense to reduce that as much as possible.

    And please, paid power progression is almost every mmo ever. Progression doesn't happen in an mmo without handing over money.

    So have fun with whatever choices you make and games you play.
    I believe all writing, even poetry and lyrics, at its most fundamental is meant to be persuasive. When I write 'advocate' I'm referring to the thing we do on these forums by posting yay or nay style arguments on a subject we most likely care about to at least some extent. I've been on these forums long enough to know that you like this subject, Torval. You've invested a lengthy bit of thought and effort in it. You are a worthy debater.

    You have me wondering now though whether or not you will see yourself as a debater, as I've, so unilaterally, cast you.

    That aside, I know that you merely see yourself as describing reality to those of us pushing back on this issue; that, moreover, there are still plenty of choices left to assuage the fears of those that despise the loot box and its aftereffect. Though there is a certain coherence to that argument my consciousness must waver on the part that describes the new thing as minutely better than the unpleasant and un-prefered next-to-last new thing.

    I don't personally have much belief that the publishers' bottom lines and the gamers' preferences line up so very well (or even that those bottom lines fit with developer preferences, for that matter). I think that without passionate, though hopefully reasonable, resistance to these type of practices publishers will sublimate at least certain aspects--if not all aspects--of games into the driest and most cynical form of gratification/payment transaction possible.

    These may seem like dramatic terms, but one generation's reality may seem unthinkable to the one before it. As I noted in my last post, value in the future is difficult to anticipate.

    Lastly, you said 'progression doesn't happen in an mmo without handing over money.' I accept handing over some money for the privilege of interacting meaningfully with the result of another's hard work and resource investment. And simultaneously I believe that there is a gamut between acceptable and unacceptable thresholds of costs for that interaction.
    Slapshot1188laserit
  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,435
    edited October 13
    "Where things got a bit off the rails is when gamers realized that it wouldn’t just be cosmetics this time around, but progression, too."

    Can anyone who has been a gamer for more than a year actually believe that cosmetic changes is where anything like this in a game stops? Just like cash shops cosmetic is what you get at launch, in fact these days they often start with items that effect gameplay.

    How many times have I and others posted about the inevitable progression of revenue making and casino gaming features in MMOs and gaming as a whole? Gamers must have their heads in the sand if they have not cottoned on to this yet.
    Post edited by Scot on
    Slapshot1188

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    And this is how it ends:


    Kickaxelaserit
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • PhryPhry OxfordshireMember EpicPosts: 8,900
    in This game, if you buy enough loot boxes and upgrade Darth Vader enough etc. then you can pretty much play that character throughout the game, as nobody will be able to kill you and you will pretty much dominate those you engage with, sweet system if your into buying your way to victory. :p
    BruceYee
  • LawlmonsterLawlmonster Member UncommonPosts: 1,037
    Just drink the koolaid, right?
    BruceYee

    "This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)

  • laxielaxie UK - Leamington SpaMember RarePosts: 800
    Is it really impossible to make a profit on only the box price? I don't work for a AAA games company, so I honestly don't know.

    I am finding it hard to believe though, as some games do only have the box price. Those games might have lower budgets though, so I'm not sure. I also know that games like GTA5 made lots of money on just the base game - my friend was one of the top people on the team. He said microtransations were not something the team relied on at first - they aimed to make profits from sales. It was a surprise to them how much the micro transactions were making, so they decided to embrace it later in the development.

    Games like GTA are highly successful titles (with huge sales) though, it might not be the norm. Would games like Assasins Creed not be possible on the box price?
    Scot
Sign In or Register to comment.