So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
Let me guess, you root for the villains in superhero movies, right?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
Let me guess, you root for the villains in superhero movies, right?
tone it down a notch its not like the world is going to cave in on itself if lootboxes dont go away.. jesus
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
Let me guess, you root for the villains in superhero movies, right?
seeing patterns in consumer behaviour and making financial decisions on that data is somehow evil now?
look I get that you think me giving advice to people who at most play candy crush on their phones on how to handle their investments in the videogames industry makes me an evil guy, I really do.
BUT I wouldn't be able to tell these people not to worry if you, yes you the gamer, would stop giving these companies your money when they do things that make you upset ( like the recent lootbox fiasco)
P.S. by "you" I dont mean you specifically but rather those who rage on twitter/reddit. . .and are first in line to pick up their preorders.
The thread title should read... Microtransactions ARE working.... Not is working.
As for the article...I have no issues with microtransactions in games so I didn't bother reading it.
No the title should read...Microtransactions are working for the developer not the gamer. It would be similar to casinos,just because millions are stupid enough to gamble and can't figure it out,does not mean it is working. I do not think there are many businesses in the entire world that are working for both the business and the consumer. Daycare..expensive retirement homes...outrageous loot boxes...outrageous
The standard was set and PROVEN it makes the developer money and that is 15 dollar sub fee.If the cash shops and micros are above and beyond they are NOT working for the gamer.
I think that what it is ,is that consumer's ,the dumb ones cannot differentiate between the business side and the FUN/Value side.The game is fun,i don't mind spending 500 dollars a month sort of mentality or lack of.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The thread title should read... Microtransactions ARE working.... Not is working.
As for the article...I have no issues with microtransactions in games so I didn't bother reading it.
No the title should read...Microtransactions are working for the developer not the gamer. It would be similar to casinos,just because millions are stupid enough to gamble and can't figure it out,does not mean it is working. I do not think there are many businesses in the entire world that are working for both the business and the consumer. Daycare..expensive retirement homes...outrageous loot boxes...outrageous
The standard was set and PROVEN it makes the developer money and that is 15 dollar sub fee.If the cash shops and micros are above and beyond they are NOT working for the gamer.
I think that what it is ,is that consumer's ,the dumb ones cannot differentiate between the business side and the FUN/Value side.The game is fun,i don't mind spending 500 dollars a month sort of mentality or lack of.
or is it.
let me pose this question, its working for the developer why? because people use the lootboxes.
why do they use the lootboxes? because they want to
so there is a problem in this entire debate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The thread title should read... Microtransactions ARE working.... Not is working.
As for the article...I have no issues with microtransactions in games so I didn't bother reading it.
No the title should read...Microtransactions are working for the developer not the gamer. It would be similar to casinos,just because millions are stupid enough to gamble and can't figure it out,does not mean it is working. I do not think there are many businesses in the entire world that are working for both the business and the consumer. Daycare..expensive retirement homes...outrageous loot boxes...outrageous
The standard was set and PROVEN it makes the developer money and that is 15 dollar sub fee.If the cash shops and micros are above and beyond they are NOT working for the gamer.
I think that what it is ,is that consumer's ,the dumb ones cannot differentiate between the business side and the FUN/Value side.The game is fun,i don't mind spending 500 dollars a month sort of mentality or lack of.
so people are dumb because they spend money on things you personally don't like?
also I dont get how you're ok with mandatory subscriptions but not microtransactions?
what if a game has no sub but has microtransactions? if the price of the micro transactions is $14.99 is that working for the gamer because it costs less than the sub? or is it working for the developer because its in a cash shop???
what if a game has no sub and only lets an account spend 15 dollars a month in their cash shop??? is it evil then? what if you have to spend that $15 every 30 days to still have access to the game? is that ok? mind you you're spending that money on microtransactions not a sub. . .
I honestly just don't understand why people insist on continuing to play these games that fleece you with RMT. Especially egregious shit like the Fallout IV example that was mentioned.
There is a good way to do microtransactions, Dota 2 is probably perfect, LoL isn't too bad, etc. Those games are also FREE so you don't HAVE to pay for shit unless you want to.
EA and their ilk are going for the complete opposite, constantly testing the waters to see how far they can push the line, etc etc.
Sadly i agree with the OP, i just don't see it going anywhere. Way too many gamers are too obsessed with certain IP's and will keep buying the games despite taking it up the ass because its "star wars" or its "battlefield" or whatever.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
Pressure from who though?
The filthy consumers they have an obvious contempt for or Disney that just put their licensees on notice not to tarnish their IP's? EA's not been doing so hot with the the Star Wars IP of late. SW:TOR is headed for maintenance mode, Visceral just got eviscerated, and now the kerfuffle over Battlefront.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
Pressure from who though?
The filthy consumers they have an obvious contempt for or Disney that just put their licensees on notice not to tarnish their IP's? EA's not been doing so hot with the the Star Wars IP of late. SW:TOR is headed for maintenance mode, Visceral just got eviscerated, and now the kerfuffle over Battlefront.
from social media. . . I thought I made that abundantly clear.
Disney is a business, when push comes to shove if the game performs well (much like how the first one did) they dont care. . .so I highly doubt Disney put any pressure on them.
I have the money to spend on them, so maybe that's easy for me to say, but still.
I have the money to spend on them too, but I don't.
This issue (SWBF2 microtransactions) is not limited to gaming. The larger issue is what kind of society we want to live in and how we (as consumers, citizens, etc.) allow ourselves to be treated. So I see how we spend our money as how we vote on these larger issues.
We all know that money is power, that corporations lobby governments, sponsor media, etc. etc., so this single purchase is connected to a complex web. If you don't want to think about that when you make a purchase, that's fine and I don't care. Obviously, it's each person's choice and people wind up getting the government and the society they deserve in the end.
I'm not preaching to convert anyone, but I do want to explain how I think about spending or not to make clear that it's not just about the money for everyone.
So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
CoD and LotR doesn't have a following that's as big as SW. SW gets constant exposure because of the resent books, movies, theme park tours, etc. I think it's a numbers game. A lot of people got upset at ME:A and the company responded to that, not by much because they knew they were ending the series.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
CoD and LotR doesn't have a following that's as big as SW. SW gets constant exposure because of the resent books, movies, theme park tours, etc. I think it's a numbers game. A lot of people got upset at ME:A and the company responded to that, not by much because they knew they were ending the series.
EA pulled the plug on future mass effect: andromada dlc/games because it didn't sell well, not because of internet outrage. . .
the fact that Star Wars has a bigger following than the Lord of the Rings or Call of Duty actually means it has a higher chance of performing well in spite of controversy.
So, how are microtransactions working for EA/DICE these days
depends on the income they are making which is the focus of the article. lots of people bitch and moan endlessly about early access and yet early access is doing very well
That is all well and good, but this thread is about microtransactions, not early access, isnt it?
Also, that article, if you read it, has subscriptions lumped in with microtransactions.
and what is your point then?
What do you think my point is?
I dont know which is why I am asking.
regardless My point here is that community outrage doesnt always equal the financial bottom line, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of money and never say anything.
What is your view?
(p.s. I would take postlarvals advice its very sound)
Probably just a blip...
nope I think that is good evidence to your point.
why do you think its a blip? you should have more confidence in your research, well done!
Because EA is not just SWBF2. They're getting a shit ton of grief at the moment that has insinuated itself into the mainstream media and financial publications with several "Don't buy" cautions.
But that's all short term. They're too big to fail... at least I think they are
this has happened before with EA. Bad publicity causes a 5-7% dip mostly due to financial "experts" not well versed in the Video game industry giving bad advice, but come their next earnings report it will shoot higher than the dip and then continue it steady growth.
Wall Street is notorious for getting into a panic over things they don't fully understand, you wouldn't believe how many brokers have called my consulting firm asking if they should panic sell over this EA caves to social media pressure story.
I am confused now as to which answer is correct...lol
well if I understand the stock price was shown to provide proof that social media outrage can affect a company's financials.
thats a red herring, a dip in stock price based on jittery investors (which is the case now) is not the same as a dip due to missing projected earnings.
The game in question comes out today, Nov 17th, so we will see if it misses its mark in projected sales over the next week or so.
but I don't think it will perform poorly, Activision made half a BILLION dollars first day in sales with the new WW2 CoD, despite almost the same level of whining over that game's loot boxes.
Not much of a "red herring" when my only comment was "probably just a blip" which I then expanded upon when Sean thought I had posted definitive proof of something.
The outrage is having an immediate and most likely temporary effect but it is having an effect. That was the whole point of posting as a counter to the "this shit has no effect" standard argument.
How much worse it'll get before it corrects or even if it gets worse, is anyone's guess.
In any case I'm sure EA and shareholders would be a lot happier without the blip... unless you're buying of course
my mistake I misread you. (the perils of butting into a conversation I suppose)
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
CoD and LotR doesn't have a following that's as big as SW. SW gets constant exposure because of the resent books, movies, theme park tours, etc. I think it's a numbers game. A lot of people got upset at ME:A and the company responded to that, not by much because they knew they were ending the series.
EA pulled the plug on future mass effect: andromada dlc/games because it didn't sell well, not because of internet outrage. . .
the fact that Star Wars has a bigger following than the Lord of the Rings or Call of Duty actually means it has a higher chance of performing well in spite of controversy.
EA pulled the plug on ME:A long before the game was released which is why it didn't sale well. They cut every corner they could and allowed no early promotional play because they were banking on the loyal following for a final payday.
Not to many businesses can afford to ignore their customers, especially after spending large amounts to attract them to play the game, imo.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
[Price Gouging Around Natural Disasters Is Working!] $10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
did you just compare exploitation of a natural disaster with lootboxes in a video game?
I was going to leave a note to say "before some dullard thinks I'm directly comparing a natural disaster to video games..." but I was lazy, and definitely gave too much credit to common sense. I forgot it's 2017. My bad.
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I remember when cash shop apologists were saying "but it does not effect you, the game is funded by whales". They want every player paying, if you are not playing now you will be. We saw how software has been written to team up big spenders with little fish. They may not be using that yet, but if you think they never will you are naïve.
Companies go where the money is, expect more micotransactions making money any way they can in the unregulated gambling market that gaming has become.
'cash shop apologists'?
seriously guys just play games that dont have it.
I hate to tell you this but you cant rant a developer into being a good developer. you have to find games that dont fuck with you, they do exist.
Bait...and...switch.
for example lets say you are watching a movie or a TV show, sure you can force the creator to make some changes but in the end you would be better off watching a show where the artist understands already because if the artist doesnt understand they will likely create a new fuck up and another one and another one and another one.
you cant force a person to be good at what they do. You can force them to do something, you cant force them to be GOOD at it.
its the argument that output is always better when the person doing it is very good at it and very engaged in it by desire. you cant force that
The entire gaming industry is moving to dubious revenue practices. First it was cash shops in MMOs, they should what the companies could get away with. Then mobiles reinforced the idea, we can milk them till the cash cows come home. Now we see this in more and more multiplayer releases of any kind. So you can't choose and avoid this.
This is not about creators, originators, artists, developers. It is about the CEO's, the marketing team, the business team. They are doing a good job, a good job of fleecing players. They are the people we are trying to make sit up and listen.
Players have won this battle for a Star Wars game to have fairer revenue methods. But we have yet to see what they will come up to replace what they have had to roll back. One victory does not win a war.
Here is where I find confusion.
I play games, I play a lot of games (less so now to be honest) and I have never in my 34 years of gaming ever had a game that had a loot box or a cash shop or at least not one I ever saw. AND...I dont even try to avoid games with lootboxes and cash shops, it just so happens that the games I like dont have them
So if I can do it without even trying why cant others do it with effort. I can help.
Naming a game where they used to have loot boxes and now they don't is a like naming a MMO that used to have a cash shop but does not now. This is one direction Sean, sure it is not everywhere now but just like cash shops took over MMOs loot boxes and other gambling systems are taking over the whole of gaming.
Comments
the dip is less about the outrage and more about EA's mishandling of the situation.
EA literally did the worst thing imaginable, they caved to pressure.
On the other hand Activision and Ubisoft didn't so much as blink over the howls of rage about the loot boxes in the new CoD and LotR games, and both of those games did incredibly well in terms of sales.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
jesus
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
seeing patterns in consumer behaviour and making financial decisions on that data is somehow evil now?
look I get that you think me giving advice to people who at most play candy crush on their phones on how to handle their investments in the videogames industry makes me an evil guy, I really do.
BUT I wouldn't be able to tell these people not to worry if you, yes you the gamer, would stop giving these companies your money when they do things that make you upset ( like the recent lootbox fiasco)
P.S. by "you" I dont mean you specifically but rather those who rage on twitter/reddit. . .and are first in line to pick up their preorders.
It would be similar to casinos,just because millions are stupid enough to gamble and can't figure it out,does not mean it is working.
I do not think there are many businesses in the entire world that are working for both the business and the consumer.
Daycare..expensive
retirement homes...outrageous
loot boxes...outrageous
The standard was set and PROVEN it makes the developer money and that is 15 dollar sub fee.If the cash shops and micros are above and beyond they are NOT working for the gamer.
I think that what it is ,is that consumer's ,the dumb ones cannot differentiate between the business side and the FUN/Value side.The game is fun,i don't mind spending 500 dollars a month sort of mentality or lack of.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
let me pose this question, its working for the developer why? because people use the lootboxes.
why do they use the lootboxes?
because they want to
so there is a problem in this entire debate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yupp, microtransactions is working, they keep me away from buying those games.
There is still have a huge pool of games to choose from that don't have any of that crap so that's where my money is going.
also I dont get how you're ok with mandatory subscriptions but not microtransactions?
what if a game has no sub but has microtransactions? if the price of the micro transactions is $14.99 is that working for the gamer because it costs less than the sub? or is it working for the developer because its in a cash shop???
what if a game has no sub and only lets an account spend 15 dollars a month in their cash shop??? is it evil then? what if you have to spend that $15 every 30 days to still have access to the game? is that ok? mind you you're spending that money on microtransactions not a sub. . .
There is a good way to do microtransactions, Dota 2 is probably perfect, LoL isn't too bad, etc. Those games are also FREE so you don't HAVE to pay for shit unless you want to.
EA and their ilk are going for the complete opposite, constantly testing the waters to see how far they can push the line, etc etc.
Sadly i agree with the OP, i just don't see it going anywhere. Way too many gamers are too obsessed with certain IP's and will keep buying the games despite taking it up the ass because its "star wars" or its "battlefield" or whatever.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
The filthy consumers they have an obvious contempt for or Disney that just put their licensees on notice not to tarnish their IP's? EA's not been doing so hot with the the Star Wars IP of late. SW:TOR is headed for maintenance mode, Visceral just got eviscerated, and now the kerfuffle over Battlefront.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
Or more specifically you shouldn't read to much into a small fall in EA's share price because - in your words - it may mean jack shit.
Disney is a business, when push comes to shove if the game performs well (much like how the first one did) they dont care. . .so I highly doubt Disney put any pressure on them.
This issue (SWBF2 microtransactions) is not limited to gaming. The larger issue is what kind of society we want to live in and how we (as consumers, citizens, etc.) allow ourselves to be treated. So I see how we spend our money as how we vote on these larger issues.
We all know that money is power, that corporations lobby governments, sponsor media, etc. etc., so this single purchase is connected to a complex web. If you don't want to think about that when you make a purchase, that's fine and I don't care. Obviously, it's each person's choice and people wind up getting the government and the society they deserve in the end.
I'm not preaching to convert anyone, but I do want to explain how I think about spending or not to make clear that it's not just about the money for everyone.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
the fact that Star Wars has a bigger following than the Lord of the Rings or Call of Duty actually means it has a higher chance of performing well in spite of controversy.
$10 per water bottle around a hurricane is making more money than $10 per 12 pack.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not to many businesses can afford to ignore their customers, especially after spending large amounts to attract them to play the game, imo.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The comparison is between the headline and post contents. It highlights the silliness of saying "It's Working" without context to who. It also is a roundabout way of saying "No $#!% Sherlock, you can make more money by being unprincipled. Duh"
TL;DR
I was being facetious. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Ah, I see you are getting a hang of it...
Be carefull there, reason and common sense aren't tolerated here...
Naming a game where they used to have loot boxes and now they don't is a like naming a MMO that used to have a cash shop but does not now. This is one direction Sean, sure it is not everywhere now but just like cash shops took over MMOs loot boxes and other gambling systems are taking over the whole of gaming.