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

1235789

Comments

  • AnthurAnthur StolbergMember UncommonPosts: 845
    So the real price is not 60$, but 60$ + (lootbox price) * (lootbox count). And the count is influenced by some magic RNG. Nah, I don't play these kind of games and there are more then enough other games to be played I will probably never have the time for. So, yeah, I pass. Next game, next game....
  • HeraseHerase LondonMember RarePosts: 878
    Torval said:
    Realizer said:
     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.
    They aren't making things people want to buy, they're making things people feel they need to buy.
    That's the uproar, forcing people into a corner.

    Slowing down progression to almost a halt, making them feel they will fall behind or get destroyed by P2W, tapping into people impulsive or addictive buying. " oh ill just buy one more, they're only £1, by the end of month you've spent £50 - £100 already. 

    This is how and why loot boxes work and this is why people dislike them
    Siug
  • sayuusayuu glendale, AZMember UncommonPosts: 508
    Herase said:
    Torval said:
    Realizer said:
     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.
    They aren't making things people want to buy, they're making things people feel they need to buy.
    That's the uproar, forcing people into a corner.

    Slowing down progression to almost a halt, making them feel they will fall behind or get destroyed by P2W, tapping into people impulsive or addictive buying. " oh ill just buy one more, they're only £1, by the end of month you've spent £50 - £100 already. 

    This is how and why loot boxes work and this is why people dislike them
    by force you say? so someone from EA is going to break into gamers homes force them into a corner put a gun to their heads and force them to buy loot boxes?




  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABMember RarePosts: 2,582
    StjerneoddXodic

    You stay sassy!

  • HeraseHerase LondonMember RarePosts: 878
    sayuu said:
    Herase said:
    They aren't making things people want to buy, they're making things people feel they need to buy.
    That's the uproar, forcing people into a corner.

    Slowing down progression to almost a halt, making them feel they will fall behind or get destroyed by P2W, tapping into people impulsive or addictive buying. " oh ill just buy one more, they're only £1, by the end of month you've spent £50 - £100 already. 

    This is how and why loot boxes work and this is why people dislike them
    by force you say? so someone from EA is going to break into gamers homes force them into a corner put a gun to their heads and force them to buy loot boxes?




    You do realize you can force people into things not just physically but mentally as well right?

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHMember RarePosts: 8,676
    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?
    Seriously?  The purchased loot boxes are a lot better than the ones earned in games.  How is that not fragmenting the player base?  If you don't buy loot boxes you are on the outside looking in.

    Your arguments are empty of any reason.
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,892
    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".

    Ok that's fair. I was looking at the post in a somewhat broader sense when I saw it. That box fees don't "cover what is needed".

    The issue always seems to be: are games making enough money for their companies. And then people say "well look, box costs cover development/don't cover development and they need more money. And players start showing that they made "plenty of profit", when in reality that profit is needed to make their fiscal projections.

    And while I work for one of the top two biotech companies "for a certain product" (arguably #1) if you work for one of the top 5 transportation companies (and I assume publicly traded and not some non-profit) then you know full well that you will hear about how much you are slated to grow within the year.

    And what happens when you do or don't.
    laxie



  • heerobyaheerobya Member UncommonPosts: 415
    Eh, I don't like P2W at all, but I'm also in the camp where I feel like I'm paying $30 for the single player campaign and $30 for the multiplayer, plus I got the digital deluxe or whatever and I'm not even sure what is included. Probably some star cards?

    I may even spend some $ on a pack of loot crates to get started on the right foot.

    Why?

    Because I can.

    I'm 34, married, don't have all the time in the world - also make a good salary so... pay 2 win? Nah.

    Pay 2 keep up with those with a lot more time? Sure!

    I get it... I can't believe I'm saying it after being a gamer for... I don't know, 30 years? But I get it.

    The argument against is obvious - but yeah, I agree, I'd rather have a slight P2W w/ loot boxes then DLC.

    That being said, I also tend to buy Season Passes for games I know I'm going to play a lot.

    Guess I'm the "rich sucker" who is keeping this stuff alive!

    MWAHAHHAAHA

    ALL OF THIS IS MY OWN OPINION AND AS SUCH TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT

  • MargraveMargrave Member UncommonPosts: 932
    I'm telling everyone that asks to NOT buy this game.

    It's not different enough from the first, and this lootbox nonsense is inexcusable.

    That's a f2p mechanic in a b2p game.

    I stopped playing ESO over those. I'm not starting this title because of those.

    There's other good games, I don't have to buy this game. So I won't.
    BruceYee
  • PhryPhry OxfordshireMember EpicPosts: 8,900
    Anthur said:
    So the real price is not 60$, but 60$ + (lootbox price) * (lootbox count). And the count is influenced by some magic RNG. Nah, I don't play these kind of games and there are more then enough other games to be played I will probably never have the time for. So, yeah, I pass. Next game, next game....
    You can get lootboxes through gameplay, but your talking 1000's of hours to get the same results as just buying them, so either get used to not being as competitive as other players, or buy loot boxes, thats pretty much the only choice thats open to players.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,203
    Sovrath said:
    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".

    Ok that's fair. I was looking at the post in a somewhat broader sense when I saw it. That box fees don't "cover what is needed".

    The issue always seems to be: are games making enough money for their companies. And then people say "well look, box costs cover development/don't cover development and they need more money. And players start showing that they made "plenty of profit", when in reality that profit is needed to make their fiscal projections.

    And while I work for one of the top two biotech companies "for a certain product" (arguably #1) if you work for one of the top 5 transportation companies (and I assume publicly traded and not some non-profit) then you know full well that you will hear about how much you are slated to grow within the year.

    And what happens when you do or don't.
    Absolutely agree.  We are having an all time banner year with stock trading at highs yet 2 weeks ago laid off employees.   I think that’s Bullshit too.

    laxie

    "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 :-)

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,448
    edited October 13
    Sovrath said:
    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".

    Ok that's fair. I was looking at the post in a somewhat broader sense when I saw it. That box fees don't "cover what is needed".

    The issue always seems to be: are games making enough money for their companies. And then people say "well look, box costs cover development/don't cover development and they need more money. And players start showing that they made "plenty of profit", when in reality that profit is needed to make their fiscal projections.

    And while I work for one of the top two biotech companies "for a certain product" (arguably #1) if you work for one of the top 5 transportation companies (and I assume publicly traded and not some non-profit) then you know full well that you will hear about how much you are slated to grow within the year.

    And what happens when you do or don't.
    Then I would surmise they should reassess their fiscal projections.  Again, there are other companies in the same realm making games without this nonsense that seem to be meeting or exceeding their fiscal projections just fine.

    You're making the assumption that the fiscal projections are in some way justified or reasonable.  Working for a Fortune 100 company that shares intimately it's details for planned fiscal growth with its employees, I can assure you it's not always the case.

    However, with that said, there's not enough info to make that assessment either way, so the idea that they "need" it isn't any more supported than the idea that it's simply a cash grab because they've seen it work in other genres.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

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

    Ok that's fair. I was looking at the post in a somewhat broader sense when I saw it. That box fees don't "cover what is needed".

    The issue always seems to be: are games making enough money for their companies. And then people say "well look, box costs cover development/don't cover development and they need more money. And players start showing that they made "plenty of profit", when in reality that profit is needed to make their fiscal projections.

    And while I work for one of the top two biotech companies "for a certain product" (arguably #1) if you work for one of the top 5 transportation companies (and I assume publicly traded and not some non-profit) then you know full well that you will hear about how much you are slated to grow within the year.

    And what happens when you do or don't.
    Then I would surmise they should reassess their fiscal projections.  Again, there are other companies in the same realm making games without this nonsense that seem to be meeting or exceeding their fiscal projections just fine.

    You're making the assumption that the fiscal projections are in some way justified or reasonable.  Working for a Fortune 100 company that shares intimately it's details for planned fiscal growth with its employees, I can assure you it's not always the case.

    However, with that said, there's not enough info to make that assessment either way, so the idea that they "need" it isn't any more supported than the idea that it's simply a cash grab because they've seen it work in other genres.
    That’s true as well.  One of our departments has had a 50% growth target for the last 3 years in a row.  They have never gotten out of the teens.  Yet every year the budget is based on this asinine assumption that this year it will happen...
    Sovrath

    "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 :-)

  • KonfessKonfess Dallas, TXMember RarePosts: 1,583
    edited October 13
    It's Loot Crates, or you can try the system they were talked out of. Buy game licence for $75, then monthly subscription of $75.

    You got, buy the game for $60, play the game for 2.5 years and earn everything for free.
    Post edited by Konfess on
    Excession

    Pardon any spelling errors
    Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven
    Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
    Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
    As if it could exist, without being payed for.
    F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
    Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.

  • PhryPhry OxfordshireMember EpicPosts: 8,900
    Konfess said:
    It's Loot Crates, or you can try the system they were talked out of. Buy game licence for $75, then monthly subscription of $75.

    You got, buy the game for $60, play the game for 2.5 years and earn everything for free.
    Its unrealistic that anyone would get a 'decent' number of loot crates to make a real difference, at least not for free, assuming you play the game religiously for 5 hours a night for 3 months solid or about 450 hours worth anyway, you wouldn't get enough in that time period to compete against someone who bought loot crates on day one, and by the time anyone got enough 'free' loot crates to compete with a 'paying' player, likely the 'paying' players would have long since moved on to other games along with most of the 'free' players too.
    So the choices are clear, buy loot crates and compete, or get used to being the 'trash mob' in the game.
    Herase
  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCMember EpicPosts: 4,840
    edited October 13
    Interesting

    According to this video, around the 16 minute mark, EA in an earnings call said they made 650 million through microtranactions alone last year for FIFA Ultimate Team

     https://www.gamespot.com/articles/why-star-wars-battlefront-2s-microtransactions-are/1100-6453996/?utm_source=weekly_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160510&bt_ee=hAru4K2B/3YZGZ7Mebm2qE5/lf8CFmMZLXyEzhyRwBkq+TBpB9XsdBemXFR9KBmT&bt_ts=1507890167152

    It only gets worse from here





    Post edited by laserit on
    Torval

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • ShaighShaigh Member RarePosts: 1,460
    The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,892
    Sovrath said:
    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".

    Ok that's fair. I was looking at the post in a somewhat broader sense when I saw it. That box fees don't "cover what is needed".

    The issue always seems to be: are games making enough money for their companies. And then people say "well look, box costs cover development/don't cover development and they need more money. And players start showing that they made "plenty of profit", when in reality that profit is needed to make their fiscal projections.

    And while I work for one of the top two biotech companies "for a certain product" (arguably #1) if you work for one of the top 5 transportation companies (and I assume publicly traded and not some non-profit) then you know full well that you will hear about how much you are slated to grow within the year.

    And what happens when you do or don't.
    Then I would surmise they should reassess their fiscal projections.  Again, there are other companies in the same realm making games without this nonsense that seem to be meeting or exceeding their fiscal projections just fine.

    You're making the assumption that the fiscal projections are in some way justified or reasonable.  Working for a Fortune 100 company that shares intimately it's details for planned fiscal growth with its employees, I can assure you it's not always the case.

    However, with that said, there's not enough info to make that assessment either way, so the idea that they "need" it isn't any more supported than the idea that it's simply a cash grab because they've seen it work in other genres.
    Which ones? (publicly traded companies making games meeting fiscal projections that don't have extra cash shops, loot boxes, day 1 dlc, Season passes, etc)

    Also I am not saying the fiscal projections are "justified and reasonable". I'm saying they are there.

    Last year my company set extremely aggressive expectations and acknowledged that we might not meet them but we were going to try.

    Stressed some people out but "we did it".

    Also if there is not enough info to "make that assessment either way" then the idea that they need it doesn't matter. They want this money, they say they need this money so it is what it is.

    Since they make money for "you the investor" they are working with your interests in mind. I"m sure if you have investments in companies you want them to make you money. No publicly traded company (or company that sells shares in their organization) has ever done well saying "well, we could have made more money but we decided not to".

    They might give a really good reason as to why they didn't do it but investors don't usually care.
    Torval



  • tawesstawess LkpgMember RarePosts: 3,740
    I love me some no risk gambling. Lootboxes for the most part is just that. No risk gambling. I know the money i paid is gone and i will not get it back. But i get that thrill of rolling the dice. 

    P2fuckingW Otoh... That put me on on the "NOPE" list. And i have a fairly open-minded stance on what is P2W. EA not only stepped over the line. They overcharged the hyper-drive and tried to make it out like Han Solo on a Tatooine bar tab. 

    Will thet re-neg it... sure. They will be dead in the water if they do not. But it piss me off none the less. 

    I still think that OverWatch is about as far as you can push it. YOu get boxes at a decent rate in game and nothing of real value to power beyond your own sense of "fucking badass" is gained....

    That and ofc the OG Lootbox ofc, Magic the Gathering and similar CCG´s. I am for some weird reason totally fine with that. 


    Tawess gaming

    Tawess soapbox

    This have been a good conversation

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,451
    laxie said:
    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?
    GTA is successful because they have a sort of microtransactions through RMT conversion. Instead of paying dollars directly the player buys game cash in lots from $3 to $100. In addition to two box copies of the game (one for PC and one for PS4) I think we've spent another $100 or so on cash.

    Other games that offer this sort of thing are the Last of Us and Uncharted, both for multiplayer.
    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:
    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.
    I'll debate points but I don't have a vested interest in seeing one method or another succeed or fail, outside of a low flat entry fee like I paid "back in the day, in the eighties, before the war." But I do see it as better alternative, in this case, than I do DLC.

    Mikes points about fragmentation are real. There are multiple issues that can tank an online game and low player density is one of them. https://www.gamespace.com/all-articles/news/lawbreakers-10-concurrent-players/

    You're subjectively giving what you accept in monetization a pass. Whether you feel like someone "worked and earned" something in an mmo isn't relevant or change the fact of what I said, you don't progress in an mmo without forking over money.

    So you're calling for a unified resistance and boycott of publishers and practices based on your subjective approval of what's acceptable. You've already said that you're okay with publishers charging for progression but you're haggling over details. Say you get your way and they remove loot crates from the game. Where do you expect that revenue shift to take place?
    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
    Herase said:
    Torval said:
    Realizer said:
     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.
    They aren't making things people want to buy, they're making things people feel they need to buy.
    That's the uproar, forcing people into a corner.

    Slowing down progression to almost a halt, making them feel they will fall behind or get destroyed by P2W, tapping into people impulsive or addictive buying. " oh ill just buy one more, they're only £1, by the end of month you've spent £50 - £100 already. 

    This is how and why loot boxes work and this is why people dislike them
    Now you're playing semantics. Want and need in this context are interchangeable. There are non-pay options which Mike detailed. People buy them because they want what's inside. That's just a fact. Playing the victim card doesn't change that.

    This sounds more like envy than issue. You're upset because you'll have to spend game time to get what someone spent money on. The second half of your post is just an attempt at justifying your envy. I get that you don't like it. You don't have to jump through hoops to convince me. I'm not a fan of them either. That doesn't change the reality that the publisher is going to charge for the game one way or another.

    What's your alternative suggestion to recouping the revenue lost from loot crates?
    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)
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,892
    edited October 13


    laxie said:
    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?
    It's not about making profit. It's about making the profit they need/want/have projected to make.

    It's also about using resources to get maximum profit to make those goals. Why City of Heroes was closed for example.

    Publicly traded companies need to grow. It's just what they are about. Whatever it takes to make them grow and remain a viable company is what they will do.



    Post edited by Sovrath on
    Torvallaxie



  • Solar_ProphetSolar_Prophet Columbus, OHMember RarePosts: 1,687
    So the entire premise behind this article basically boils down to:



    I think I'll take a third option and just avoid games / companies with unethical practices, thanks. 

    AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!


    We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD. 


  • HeraseHerase LondonMember RarePosts: 878
    Torval said:
    Now you're playing semantics. Want and need in this context are interchangeable. There are non-pay options which Mike detailed. People buy them because they want what's inside. That's just a fact. Playing the victim card doesn't change that.

    This sounds more like envy than issue. You're upset because you'll have to spend game time to get what someone spent money on. The second half of your post is just an attempt at justifying your envy. I get that you don't like it. You don't have to jump through hoops to convince me. I'm not a fan of them either. That doesn't change the reality that the publisher is going to charge for the game one way or another.

    What's your alternative suggestion to recouping the revenue lost from loot crates?
    Yes, you're right, they want to play the game, but people don't want their games ruined for the sake of loot boxes and further more be pushed into using them, that's why there is such an uproar about it. So I disagree that they're interchangeable in this circumstances 

    I'm sorry that's the most cop-out argument. Because of envy? It's got nothing to do with envy, Myself and maybe many others are willing to drop however much money into a game, if it's worth it. My point still stands, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than "envy".

    My answer would be, if they so desperately need loot boxes to be in the game, then take the in-game advantages out of the paid boxes.You'll have more people willing to buy your game and more people willing to buy boxes. 



Sign In or Register to comment.