Analyst: "Undercharged" gamers overreacted to Star Wars Battlefront 2 microtransactions

[wiyosaya]

As I see it, the only way to get EA to pay attention to what gamers want and to head of industry paid shills like the person who wrote this "analysis" is to refuse to play the game further even having bought it, or not buy the game - even though gamers might want to play the game. If a gamer buys the game now, especially knowing about the presence of this kind of perpetual fleecing in the game, that is the gamer, IMO, telling EA they want to be fleeced.

I do not know if there was any way of knowing about the fleecing before it became public knowledge, but one further way to fight this kind of tactic by EA is for gamers to refuse to buy any of their games. EA will get the message, and, unfortunately, that may be the only way for EA to get the message!

EDIT: The worst thing about this "analyst's" take is that the analyst thinks they know what is best for everyone when the analyst clearly cannot know what is good for anyone other than what is good for the analyst. This, IMO, makes the analyst EA's drug lord.

 

[Puiu]

This is just too funny

 

[mattfrompa]

By my calculations, EA can suck it.

 

[Skjorn]

... people will simply vote with their pocket books and EA will go the way of so many other former game makers. ......

Hahaha as much as we all might hate EA a company that big with that many IP's that sell the numbers they do isn't going anywhere.

 

[EEatGDL]

If you take a step back, this "analyst" didn't even take the time to look at the 5 years of playing or additional USD $2,100 to unlock all the content supposed to be included in the $60/80 price tag. And yeah, I run his math of entertaining per hour before every buy, only those games I know I will play for 120+ hours are worth of paying full price to me, and I can't count those games. I don't know why that guy is even analyzing the cost of the game per person, when you can get whatever you want through volume and make a business of it; we aren't "underpaying".

Seriously, in Mexico you can get an hour of entertainment at the movie theater for USD $0.80. It's an insult here that to get the "full experience" of any game (gold, ultimate, top edition) you have to pay a third of the monthly salary of the average full time employment for recent graduates.

 

[That Other Guy]

I told EA to suck it years ago... about the same time they launched that headache they called origin. sadly they picked up my account with SWTOR, which forced me to promptly cancel my sub.
EA used to be a great company, like 20 years ago... now they are just a huge behemoth churning out basically low quality poppy, that somehow people forget about their last EA experience, and buy another game v2.0b only to be disappointed yet again.
I know my stance likely has nil effect on the company, but I shall stand fast. tis all I can do.

 

[Misagt]

I didn't buy this game. I don't plan on buying this game... Because EA.
As for the Analyst, breaking people down into pure numbers makes no sense at all. This doesn't take into account wages, cost of living or exchange rate. To simply say this is cheap to pay $300+ for a game is asinine at best.

 

[Darth Shiv]

If Overwatch was a f2p game, I would start to agree. But since it is a paid title with cosmetics locked behind an RNG wall, I have to disagree. Because $$$ is involved, the grind to get skins is harder (even if slightly) to incentivize spending money. And then you have to gamble trying to get the skin you want for a game you've already paid for once.

Remember in 60$ games when you had to earn skins and perks and other stuff without buying them? I do.

Valid points, but for me, the fact that they're continually developing it with new maps, new heroes, new events and game modes, justifies using an optional revenue method in order to fund that development. Everyone who gets the game gets the continued updates, and if you want to chip-in with buying boxes which don't impact on gameplay at all, then you can. If you don't want to, you can get all the other content for free. That, to me, seems fair.

Yeah considering continual investment in the game in OW and HotS, I don't mind having paid cosmetics to a degree. But the gambling model of loot crates is dodgy.

 

[torchyear]

Wing Commander cost me AUD$85 in 1990. That equates to $165 in today's money, CPI-corrected. Add-in Secret Missions (the 90's version of DLC) were about $40 back then too, taking the complete game to over $240 in today's cash, CPI-corrected.

Same pricing applied to Ultima 7 (and U7 Serpent Isle, which if I recall correctly was an add-on that was charged at full price), Syndicate + Syndicate: American Revolt add-on, etc.

So I tend to agree that current games are relatively underpriced when CPI is taken into account, but also consider his 'per-hour of entertainment' analytical perspective is flawed.

 

[wiyosaya]

Wing Commander cost me AUD$85 in 1990. That equates to $165 in today's money, CPI-corrected. Add-in Secret Missions (the 90's version of DLC) were about $40 back then too, taking the complete game to over $240 in today's cash, CPI-corrected.

Same pricing applied to Ultima 7 (and U7 Serpent Isle, which if I recall correctly was an add-on that was charged at full price), Syndicate + Syndicate: American Revolt add-on, etc.

So I tend to agree that current games are relatively underpriced when CPI is taken into account, but also consider his 'per-hour of entertainment' analytical perspective is flawed.

His per-hour analysis is marketing spin intended to make people think they are getting their money's worth for what amounts to the game, in total, being way over priced.

If the costs stopped at the cost of the game and the cost of an add-on or two like the old days of Wing Commander, the story would be much different. But if it takes $2,100+ (as reported elsewhere) to unlock all the content of the game, in no way is this even remotely consistent even with the CPI adjusted price for Wing Commander. IMO, $2,100 is deserevant of being named "way overpriced."

 

[torchyear]

His per-hour analysis is marketing spin intended to make people think they are getting their money's worth for what amounts to the game, in total, being way over priced.

If the costs stopped at the cost of the game and the cost of an add-on or two like the old days of Wing Commander, the story would be much different. But if it takes $2,100+ (as reported elsewhere) to unlock all the content of the game, in no way is this even remotely consistent even with the CPI adjusted price for Wing Commander. IMO, $2,100 is deserevant of being named "way overpriced."

Yes, fair comment, the problems with Battlefront 2 occur at multiple levels.

1. Cost of entry is relatively low in comparison with major-release titles in 1990, but this applies across the board within the games industry.
2. Expansion packs were an up-front purchase that provided additional gameplay content, e.g. narrative and missions. Loot boxes are not the same thing as DLC/expansions, and have more in common with in-game economy designs.
3. Up-front purchase of a BF2 licence arguably does not provide the complete game content, but gets you a flashy mobile app game.

The irony of all this is that (to me anyway) Chris Roberts' latest efforts in Star Citizen seem even more convoluted and shifty than the hot mess of BF2. Taking crowdfunding money with no project deadline, and selling alpha-development ship models for real money, seems even more outrageous.

 

[CyberCoala]

Who plays a game for a year and who has the time to play a game everyday 2.5hours a day. When I bought battle front 1 last Christmas I played 16 hours plus I bought the console that I played it on, that’s quite an expensive “undercharged” game. I just hope my chess game doesn’t start charging for the privilege of entertainment.

 

[Fobus]

Wing Commander cost me AUD$85 in 1990. That equates to $165 in today's money, CPI-corrected. Add-in Secret Missions (the 90's version of DLC) were about $40 back then too, taking the complete game to over $240 in today's cash, CPI-corrected.

Same pricing applied to Ultima 7 (and U7 Serpent Isle, which if I recall correctly was an add-on that was charged at full price), Syndicate + Syndicate: American Revolt add-on, etc.

So I tend to agree that current games are relatively underpriced when CPI is taken into account, but also consider his 'per-hour of entertainment' analytical perspective is flawed.

And how many people played video games back then? Shouldn't economies of scale also apply to video game prices? +it's going digital, further knocking down the cost of production and delivery.

 

[fadingfool]

Wing Commander cost me AUD$85 in 1990. That equates to $165 in today's money, CPI-corrected. Add-in Secret Missions (the 90's version of DLC) were about $40 back then too, taking the complete game to over $240 in today's cash, CPI-corrected.

Same pricing applied to Ultima 7 (and U7 Serpent Isle, which if I recall correctly was an add-on that was charged at full price), Syndicate + Syndicate: American Revolt add-on, etc.

So I tend to agree that current games are relatively underpriced when CPI is taken into account, but also consider his 'per-hour of entertainment' analytical perspective is flawed.

And how many people played video games back then? Shouldn't economies of scale also apply to video game prices? +it's going digital, further knocking down the cost of production and delivery.

Yep and Wing Commander came on 10 floppy 5.25 inch disks with a big multi-page manual, 4 blue-print posters of the allied fighters you could pilot, a quick start guide in a glossy cardboard box (I still have my copy) .
BattleFront 2 is a digital download.....

 

[Zak McKraken]

Wondering who's funding this guy - I suspect that if we did some digging, we'd find that either EA or some other gaming industry company has its claws in him...

Edit: After looking at his "company's" financial report https://www.key.com/kco/images/KBCM_Annual_Audit_Report_2016.pdf there is definitely something fishy going on here.... this company does only about 1 million dollars worth of business TOTAL.... Why is one of their analysts being chosen to write for a multi-multi-million dollar company's video game release?

Got to start work, but I suspect this bears more research...

Yes, interesting... https://twitter.com/mombot/status/932997883799814144

 

[bolski]

This man is obviously a shill for the game company. He needs to shut up.

 

[bolski]

Wing Commander cost me AUD$85 in 1990. That equates to $165 in today's money, CPI-corrected. Add-in Secret Missions (the 90's version of DLC) were about $40 back then too, taking the complete game to over $240 in today's cash, CPI-corrected.

Same pricing applied to Ultima 7 (and U7 Serpent Isle, which if I recall correctly was an add-on that was charged at full price), Syndicate + Syndicate: American Revolt add-on, etc.

So I tend to agree that current games are relatively underpriced when CPI is taken into account, but also consider his 'per-hour of entertainment' analytical perspective is flawed.

And how many people played video games back then? Shouldn't economies of scale also apply to video game prices? +it's going digital, further knocking down the cost of production and delivery.

I haven't purchased a new video game in 5+ years. I find myself going back to the old games of the 90's and early 2,000s because they were still writing games back then that had more substance in them that made the games unique and enjoyable. Not like today's games of nothing but 4k graphics to awe you into submission, but have little to no content value. Add that they add IAPs as a way to "enhance" the out-of-the-box game is just another way these gaming companies have become nothing but financial rapers of their customers because they DON'T care about making a game that is enjoyable out of the box, but rather see how much people are willing to continue paying for items that SHOULD be obtainable without spending.

 

[NightAntilli]

Leaving this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qq6HcKj59Q