I do not purchase games that do not have everything unlockable through gameplay alone. If these developers think they need more money, charge more for the COMPLETE game and stop putting items behind a paywall and a grind heavy mechanic.
I do not purchase games that do not have everything unlockable through gameplay alone. If these developers think they need more money, charge more for the COMPLETE game and stop putting items behind a paywall and a grind heavy mechanic.
Then you have the people who complain over the price of games; actually they already do.
Great article that highlights how complicated the situation is. I'm not a fan of monetizing progression at all, but apparently box fees don't cover the costs of development in the 21st Century.
Publishing drop rates for all game loot systems, not just crates, would be a good step forward. I always get a chuckle from people that latch onto the loot crate issue but don't realize they've been supporting that sort of practice through RNG loot tables and subscriptions for years. The main difference between the new system of loot crates and the old system of subscriptions and DLC is that there aren't spending caps on the new system. In the old system there were spending and reward caps.
Sorry but I have to disagree, most of the money these games make is in initial release. Loot boxes are just a example of greed. Throwing the RNG issue into the mix before release is a huge marketing blunder. I see they are already backtracking on the contents of the loot boxes. Just a matter of time before they start inserting pay-to-win items into the boxes.
What will determine the success of this game is providing enough content that the first one lacked.
... 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.
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?
Here is some analysis of the actual budget, sales and profit from the original game.
They estimate that there would need to be roughly $400M in sales for EA to turn a profit (because obviously all the sales money doesn't go into EA's coffers as bestbuy and other retailers take their piece as well as the licensing fees. As of the time of the article (early 2016)... they had sold $650M. Seems to me that's a pretty decent chunk of change as a return on investment. Especially when they estimate it "only"cost $50M in development budget. That number surely has also gone up since then as well.
That was without "Lootboxes" and any other crap.
There is making a profit, and then there is being a greedy pig. My family bought 4 copies of the game the first time around (yes.. Nerds-R-Us). This time it doesn't look like we will buy any...
I'm sure they believe they will get more revenue with this model... and they are probably right... but I sure won't support or help them push this lame ass business model.
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.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Well written, but I simply cannot agree; real money gambling in games is a cancer and it needs to stop (or be stopped, or at the very least have a big red ‘contains real money gambling’ warning label plastered across the front of the box... OK, maybe that’s a bit much, but it needs to be listed on, and consider part of, the rating along with all the ‘violence’ and ‘drug use’ stuff).
You make the argument that by having loot boxes the 'whales' can fund additional content for everyone else; these 'whales' are PEOPLE, usually vulnerable to addictive gambling, an industry that is otherwise heavily regulated in most parts of the world, but somehow games (so far) have gotten a free pass.
You also make the (frankly weak) argument that expansion packs* are somehow P2W... sorry but extra content costs money, and everyone paying their share** to enjoy said content is an infinitely better system than any sort of 'Loot Box' gambling.
* By ‘expansion’, I mean real expansions, not the nickel and dime DLC rubbish that the likes of Destiny try to pass off an 'Expansion'.
** I want to make clear that I don’t believe consumers have any obligation to buy the products that gaming (or any other companies) produce, and if games companies cannot come up with a way to sell additional content in a fair way, that doesn’t invalidate the current game, that’s on them.
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
lol How is multi accounts a massive advantage over anyone when anyone can do the same for free? Also the grind is still the same regardless if you have 1 alt account or 10 alt accounts, having more than 1 account doesn't change that.
Most people who play for free are kids, or limited amount of money to spend on a buy to play/pay to play MMO. Or limited time. Those who play normally, many people don't have the computer power or the income to afford a setup where they can log onto 10-20 accounts (I saw a 20 man group all being controlled by one person in WoW) at the same time, nor the bandwidth to even do that. That is a massive advantage to someone who has all that and can play on tons of accounts at the same time, a huge advantage in a PvP MMO.
Only people who disagree, but agree battlefront 2 are pay to win are trolls. That or they use multiple accounts to gain a massive advantage and don't want to lose their advantage by calling multi accounts pay to win.
What kids have the income to have 10-20 pc's set up to play 10-20 accounts and 20-40 arms to control them all in a pvp setting and still win? Seems like alot of work to me. DAoC is the only mmo that I know of that lets you play more than one game client/alt account on the same computer, so your alt/s can follow your main around and keep it buffed.
the same kids who spend 10,000+ on their parents credit card on crappy mobile games and other free to play junk
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.
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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 Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
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.
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.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
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.
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".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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:
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.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
"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.
Comments
Let's party like it is 1863!
What will determine the success of this game is providing enough content that the first one lacked.
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.
Here is some analysis of the actual budget, sales and profit from the original game.
https://www.cinemablend.com/games/See-How-Star-Wars-Battlefront-Did-Its-First-Two-Months-108777.html
They estimate that there would need to be roughly $400M in sales for EA to turn a profit (because obviously all the sales money doesn't go into EA's coffers as bestbuy and other retailers take their piece as well as the licensing fees. As of the time of the article (early 2016)... they had sold $650M. Seems to me that's a pretty decent chunk of change as a return on investment. Especially when they estimate it "only"cost $50M in development budget. That number surely has also gone up since then as well.
That was without "Lootboxes" and any other crap.
There is making a profit, and then there is being a greedy pig. My family bought 4 copies of the game the first time around (yes.. Nerds-R-Us). This time it doesn't look like we will buy any...
I'm sure they believe they will get more revenue with this model... and they are probably right... but I sure won't support or help them push this lame ass business model.
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.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
You make the argument that by having loot boxes the 'whales' can fund additional content for everyone else; these 'whales' are PEOPLE, usually vulnerable to addictive gambling, an industry that is otherwise heavily regulated in most parts of the world, but somehow games (so far) have gotten a free pass.
You also make the (frankly weak) argument that expansion packs* are somehow P2W... sorry but extra content costs money, and everyone paying their share** to enjoy said content is an infinitely better system than any sort of 'Loot Box' gambling.
* By ‘expansion’, I mean real expansions, not the nickel and dime DLC rubbish that the likes of Destiny try to pass off an 'Expansion'.
** I want to make clear that I don’t believe consumers have any obligation to buy the products that gaming (or any other companies) produce, and if games companies cannot come up with a way to sell additional content in a fair way, that doesn’t invalidate the current game, that’s on them.
TLDR; Loot Boxes are nothing but pure greed.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/17-year-old-uses-his-dads-credit-card-to-spend-7600-playing-fifa
https://kotaku.com/15-year-old-kid-spends-37-000-euros-on-gold-in-free-to-1642091831
https://www.cultofmac.com/404348/kid-racks-up-almost-6000-on-jurassic-world-in-app-purchases/
and tons more articles on various kids using their parents credit card.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
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.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
edit: and by your answer you've never worked in a large corporation.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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?
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.
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".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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:
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.