Loot boxes and Micro-transactions

raze_them_all_

Penn wrote: »

I think they've already climbed down on their proposed monetisation for the game. It's clearly a game that was geared towards lootboxes, aiming at the Destiny model. Given the blowback to Battlefront, Battlefield and even Destiny 2, I think EA probably realise that their best bet is to reduce the monetisation in the hopes of hooking more people into the game from the start and get better reviews/reception, keep mtxs as cosmetic-only (even like you say, release screenshot of high-prices, reduce the prices before launch and make it seem like they're balancing out of fairness).

I think they'll keep the monetisation low certainly at the start to get as many people playing the game as possible. After that, once they have the whales on the hook they might push it a bit further, but this seems to be EA trying to start off a brand new cash-cow of a franchise. One that they could make a bi-annual release. Going too hard at monetisation at the start will do huge damage to both the game and the franchise.

Wall Street has already begun getting nervous on it

Penn

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Wall Street has already begun getting nervous on it

All I'm saying is given the huge backlash (and well-deserved at that) they got with Battlefront 2 and seeing the general turning against lootboxes/mtxs as a whole, I think they will likely go softer on those monetisation systems than they were planning to and keep it cosmetics-only in order to make the game more palatable/well-received and increase revenue in the long run. Just my opinion.

raze_them_all_

Penn wrote: »

All I'm saying is given the huge backlash (and well-deserved at that) they got with Battlefront 2 and seeing the general turning against lootboxes/mtxs as a whole, I think they will likely go softer on those monetisation systems than they were planning to and keep it cosmetics-only in order to make the game more palatable/well-received and increase revenue in the long run. Just my opinion.

People are getting sick of paying massive money for cosmetics though. 8euro what a different colour. Not a new skin, a ****ing paint job

Nody

Penn wrote: »

All I'm saying is given the huge backlash (and well-deserved at that) they got with Battlefront 2 and seeing the general turning against lootboxes/mtxs as a whole, I think they will likely go softer on those monetisation systems than they were planning to and keep it cosmetics-only in order to make the game more palatable/well-received and increase revenue in the long run. Just my opinion.

You are aware that one of the major drivers for EA to cancel multiple of the SW games etc. was because they could not deliver Fifa style monitization opportunities, right? This was not a question "Is this game good or not" but "Show us how you're going to deliver us another Fifa billion dollar a year profit" and if they could not they did not want to fund it further. That's another reason why they are pushing it out asap because Fifa income is going down and they need to show the stock market another game they can gobble up microtransactions from to keep things rolling.

Venom

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

People are getting sick of paying massive money for cosmetics though. 8euro what a different colour. Not a new skin, a ****ing paint job

What bugs me is the fact these cosmetics are still being called micro-transactions, when they cost a third of the price of the game!

Varik

If a whale wants to spend money and let me have DLC for free then good let them. In destiny would grab whatever I'd a few of just to coordinated something but even if it was an unlimited shader wouldn't have paid for one.

Penn

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that one of the major drivers for EA to cancel multiple of the SW games etc. was because they could not deliver Fifa style monitization opportunities, right? This was not a question "Is this game good or not" but "Show us how you're going to deliver us another Fifa billion dollar a year profit" and if they could not they did not want to fund it further. That's another reason why they are pushing it out asap because Fifa income is going down and they need to show the stock market another game they can gobble up microtransactions from to keep things rolling.

Hence why I think they'll want to go easy on monetisation at the start to draw more people in from the beginning and try get good reviews and response, and to start their new cash-cow franchise off on the right foot, and then start ramping up monetization both in this game and then in sequels. None of that happens if Anthem faces a backlash with regards to monetisation at launch.

Trust me, I have no doubt EA want to make (as Jim Sterling would say) not just most of the money, but all of the money. I have no doubt they'll squeeze every last cent they can out of people that they can get away with. But I think to do so, they'll have learnt their mistakes from Battlefront and will adjust accordingly. A negative reaction at launch will severely hamper how much money they could make. A positive reaction allows them to grow a fan base for this new franchise, and then exploit them and try get as much money from them as possible.

Venom

Penn wrote: »

Hence why I think they'll want to go easy on monetisation at the start to draw more people in from the beginning and try get good reviews and response, and to start their new cash-cow franchise off on the right foot, and then start ramping up monetization both in this game and then in sequels. None of that happens if Anthem faces a backlash with regards to monetisation at launch.

Trust me, I have no doubt EA want to make (as Jim Sterling would say) not just most of the money, but all of the money. I have no doubt they'll squeeze every last cent they can out of people that they can get away with. But I think to do so, they'll have learnt their mistakes from Battlefront and will adjust accordingly. A negative reaction at launch will severely hamper how much money they could make. A positive reaction allows them to grow a fan base for this new franchise, and then exploit them and try get as much money from them as possible.

You keep saying EA has learnt from their Battlefront 2 screwup but the loot boxes getting shelved in that game is mostly down to Disney having a fit at the amount of negative press it was generating for the brand just before The Last Jedi was due to be released and that so many governments around the world, suddenly started paying attention to such predatory practices. EA has fought tooth and nail to keep loot boxes in Fifa 2019, so let's not pretend they have seen the light or won't drop Anthem in a heartbeat if it doesn't meet whatever financial goal they have pre-determined it must meet.

Penn

Again (and hopefully for the last time), I'm not in any way saying they've seen the light or won't monetise the sh*t out of the game, I'm saying it likely won't be as egregious as what they've done in the past for the first few months the game is out.

gizmo

Ah lads, EA and the like have done enough actual **** in this area to talk about for years, I don't know where some of these hot takes come from.

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that one of the major drivers for EA to cancel multiple of the SW games etc. was because they could not deliver Fifa style monitization opportunities, right? This was not a question "Is this game good or not" but "Show us how you're going to deliver us another Fifa billion dollar a year profit" and if they could not they did not want to fund it further. That's another reason why they are pushing it out asap because Fifa income is going down and they need to show the stock market another game they can gobble up microtransactions from to keep things rolling.

While I don't doubt there was a desire within EA to take advantage of the "games as a service" trend while they had exclusive rights to the licence, this simply isn't true. Ragtag was cancelled because it was in an absolute state and the retooled open-world version of the game, Orca, was cancelled, in its current form at least, due to the scope of the project and when it would be delivered. If EA were so keen on a games as a service title then they would have retooled or cancelled Respawn's Jedi Fallen Order too, no?

As for Anthem being pushed out for the reasons stated, again there's zero evidence of this. The decisions to move it from Fall 2018 to early 2019 was announced in January 2018, eight months before the release of the current FIFA iteration which is the one whose sales are said to be down significantly compared to its predecessor. The market reacted to that move back then alright because of the risk of the game not being released in the current financial year, it has nothing to do with FIFA income.

Venom wrote: »

You keep saying EA has learnt from their Battlefront 2 screwup but the loot boxes getting shelved in that game is mostly down to Disney having a fit at the amount of negative press it was generating for the brand just before The Last Jedi was due to be released and that so many governments around the world, suddenly started paying attention to such predatory practices. EA has fought tooth and nail to keep loot boxes in Fifa 2019, so let's not pretend they have seen the light or won't drop Anthem in a heartbeat if it doesn't meet whatever financial goal they have pre-determined it must meet.

The only evidence that Disney had anything to do with microtransactions being removed from Battlefront 2 is the existence of a phone call between Andrew Wilson (EA CEO) and Jimmy Pitaro (Chair of Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media division) which took place shortly before the roll-back. While you could look at that as Disney putting the foot down and righting the ship, you'd need to ignore Disney's own awful history in this space, not only their well documented influence over projects using their IP but also on the subject of microtransactions themselves.

The most recent example? The non-EA developed Star Wars: Rivals F2P game for mobiles. It was soft-launched in select regions at the end of last year and cancelled in December before full release following some pretty scathing reviews - think Battlefront 2 had bad microtransactions? Try $99.99 per item. It goes further back than and beyond Star Wars though. There was an article written on the subject of mobile games aimed at kids a couple of years back that is quite relevant, particularly a comment from Ramin Shokrizade (Game Economist at Wargaming at the time) that I think may have a familiar ring.

"I don't think companies like Disney will take any action without regulators making them. I've been putting pressure on Disney and I've not been alone in that regard. Especially considering they have some of the most offensive products, and I've let them know this. I'm absolutely certain Disney will not improve the quality of their products without being forced to."

There's also their history in the formerly lucrative Toys to Life market with Disney Infinite, their progressive ****ing of their internal studios as they shut Disney Interactive Studios and finally, their binning of LucasArts after the acquisition of LucasFilm; the bit about 1313 being especially disappointing.

In any case, this idea that they're anything approaching the good guys in this situation is ludicrous, there's very much two of them in it.

Venom

Gizmo I am in no way defending Disney here just stating what is known to the public. EA, on the other hand, has a long-standing history of not only scrapping games and dev studios they deem are not performing to the level they want but also of killing off major franchises as can be just recently with Mass Effect. I can't find the article but there was speculation that EA will drop the "10-year plan" for Anthem along with support and future DLC if the game doesn't sell crazy levels units in its first couple of weeks.

gizmo

Venom wrote: »

Gizmo I am in no way defending Disney here just stating what is known to the public. EA, on the other hand, has a long-standing history of not only scrapping games and dev studios they deem are not performing to the level they want but also of killing off major franchises as can be just recently with Mass Effect. I can't find the article but there was speculation that EA will drop the "10-year plan" for Anthem along with support and future DLC if the game doesn't sell crazy levels units in its first couple of weeks.

Aye, that wasn't the intent of my post, what I was trying to get across was that the situation is more than likely more complex than what was stated. Bearing in mind all of the above is public knowledge too, you can see Disney have been guilty of the same behaviour as EA over the last number of years. The casualties may not have been as high profile but they most definitely have prior form. Thus, when it came to pulling back on the MTs in Battlefront II, it's far more likely there were two companies involved who realised they had gone too far.

In light of this, as Penn said above, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that EA will be extremely cautious about avoiding the same mistakes when it comes to launching their own IP, at least initially.

Anthem in general though? There's not the slightest god damn doubt in my mind that they'll can the series if it under-performs. An unfortunate situation for not only the early adopters but also, I imagine, for the remaining staff at Bioware.

If Anthem "fails or underperforms" that's all on the SLT pitching these monitized to death games to investors with ridiculous targets and continuous revenue streams.

It's EAs continuous problem. Even when they make ridiculous amounts of money they all want more and more and more.

"Oh no my new game that does the exact same thing as so many others as we have butchered due monitisation only sold a cabillion dollars but didn't sell a cajillion dollars.
Right time to can the sequel, scrap any future projects and disband another game development studio we single handedly destroyed"

And the apologists continue the "but game development is expensive" lark. And the circle of fun continues on.

johnny_ultimate

Fred The Red wrote: »

It's EAs continuous problem. Even when they make ridiculous amounts of money they all want more and more and more.

Hmm... Starting to think there may be an opportunity being missed to convince a generation of gamers about the fundamental flaws and unsustainability of modern capitalism and neoliberalism, and get them on the socialist train thanks to their dislike of microtransactions. (I’m both joking and being totally serious).

As an aside, I personally can’t really get animated about the microtransactions in Anthem as I think the game looks like another bland as **** shooty looty game. When was the last time EA actually made a truly great game worth buying? Titanfall 2?

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hmm... Starting to think there may be an opportunity being missed to convince a generation of gamers about the fundamental flaws and unsustainability of modern capitalism and neoliberalism, and get them on the socialist train thanks to their dislike of microtransactions. (I’m both joking and being totally serious).

As an aside, I personally can’t really get animated about the microtransactions in Anthem as I think the game looks like another bland as **** shooty looty game. When was the last time EA actually made a truly great game worth buying? Titanfall 2?

No idea what the first rant paragraph is about...

But to answer the actual question, yes Titanfall 2. Which was Respawn.

Which they completely shafted by releasing it right beside another game also published by them. And gave it little to no marketing. It all went to Battlefield when in reality Titanfall 2 was arguably GOTY that year.

Their idiocy never ceases to amaze.

I'm starting to think that decision was made because they had absolutely no faith in the market actually wanting a great, innovative single player game with multiplayer as a secondary component. Pumped all the marketing resources at Battlefield and launched side by side. LOL.

It's the same way they undersold A Way Out even before it launched, an original coop experience and their investors were shocked at how well it did with little to no marketing.

I would take a guess and say hardly any of them held a controller in their lives.

My 11 year old nephew says he only likes games that EA make and he'd never heard of microtransactions. I think I'm gonna get him Dark Souls for his birthday so teach him a lesson.

Skylinehead

Fred The Red wrote: »

No idea what the first rant paragraph is about...

It's pretty straightforward.

It's EAs continuous problem. Even when they make ridiculous amounts of money they all want more and more and more.

It's everyones continuous problem. I want more and more. I assume you do. Any CEO that told his shareholders that he didn't want "more and more" would be thrown out the window.

gizmo

Fred The Red wrote: »

If Anthem "fails or underperforms" that's all on the SLT pitching these monitized to death games to investors with ridiculous targets and continuous revenue streams.

Anthem should be capable of failing all on its own though. What's unique or special about it like? Look at it's closest inspiration, Destiny. You had the Halo-team at Bungie tackling the project with a practically unblemished record. You had a highly effective marketing campaign which focused on the pedigree of the company, the mythology of the game with both the Traveller and the variety of races taking center stage and, to top it off, it was billed as both an online multiplayer shooter and having a cinematic campaign.

Now look at Anthem. Bioware have been all over the place in terms of the quality of their releases and, in terms of GaaS, EA are coming off the back of the Battlefront 2 fiasco. If someone asked you to describe the game, could you? I mean, there was a Story Trailer released back in December during the Game Awards but can you tell me who the hero or villain are or what the game is actually about or how it'll really play?

From my own perspective, my interest in the game starts and ends with the single player campaign and the mechanics therein. I don't care about the end-game or the "service" aspects of the title so when one of the Lead Producers says this:

https://twitter.com/BenIrvo/status/1077980682574536704

...I'm not exactly reaching for my wallet.

BUT.

EA raises internal sales expectations for Anthem

This will have been done for two reasons, the game is being well received internally through focus testing and mock reviews and the pre-order numbers are looking really good. So I'll be ****ed if I can tell how it's going to go. :pac:

Fred The Red wrote: »

It's EAs continuous problem. Even when they make ridiculous amounts of money they all want more and more and more.

This problem is far from unique to EA though. Look at a list of publicly traded video game companies and order by market cap, skipping the Asian online/mobile based ones. Start at the top with Activision Blizzard, EA and Take-Two Interactive and then drop down a bit to find Ubisoft and Konami. Notice a pattern?

Fred The Red wrote: »

It's the same way they undersold A Way Out even before it launched, an original coop experience and their investors were shocked at how well it did with little to no marketing.

A Way Out came through the EA Originals program which was setup to fund smaller scale indie projects, hence their marketing budgets would be scaled appropriately. Unravel and Fe have also come through the same program and yet, despite the former being rated slightly higher than A Way Out, it didn't achieve such notable sales as said game. Any idea why?

Fred The Red wrote: »

And the apologists continue the "but game development is expensive" lark. And the circle of fun continues on.

Can you link to some of the posts by people whom you believe work for EA or consider apoligists, please?

TheBoyFromAus

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hmm... Starting to think there may be an opportunity being missed to convince a generation of gamers about the fundamental flaws and unsustainability of modern capitalism and neoliberalism, and get them on the socialist train thanks to their dislike of microtransactions. (I’m both joking and being totally serious).

As an aside, I personally can’t really get animated about the microtransactions in Anthem as I think the game looks like another bland as **** shooty looty game. When was the last time EA actually made a truly great game worth buying? Titanfall 2?

Titanfall 2 was garbage, i found Titanfall 1 much more fun.

K.O.Kiki

TheBoyFromAus wrote: »

Titanfall 2 was garbage, i found Titanfall 1 much more fun.

Titanfall 1 didn't have a single-player campaign.
Titanfall 2's campaign is stellar.

Venom

TheBoyFromAus wrote: »

Titanfall 2 was garbage, i found Titanfall 1 much more fun.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Titanfall 1 didn't have a single-player campaign.
Titanfall 2's campaign is stellar.

It's absolutely criminal how EA screwed over Respawn Entertainment and Titanfall 2 by releasing it right between Battlefield 1 and that year's COD. Really was sickening to see such a well made game getting shafted like that.

TheBoyFromAus

Venom wrote: »

It's absolutely criminal how EA screwed over Respawn Entertainment and Titanfall 2 by releasing it right between Battlefield 1 and that year's COD. Really was sickening to see such a well made game getting shafted like that.

Aggressive response to a personal opinion. I don't care much for single player, and so had no issue with the lack of campaign. Prick.

kunst nugget

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Titanfall 1 didn't have a single-player campaign.
Titanfall 2's campaign is stellar.

I don't get the fuss about that campaign. I found it very average after all the hype I read on here about it.

Venom

The blows just keep coming for, EA with firms who advise on trends within the financial markets strongly suggesting investors give EA stock a hard pass.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4236081-avoid-ea-fun-end

Venom

Venom wrote: »

The blows just keep coming for, EA with firms who advise on trends within the financial markets strongly suggesting investors give EA stock a hard pass.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4236081-avoid-ea-fun-end

Delighted for them

They only did it to themselves and what alot of us have been saying all along dispite the apologists saying otherwise.

gizmo

Venom wrote: »

The blows just keep coming for, EA with firms who advise on trends within the financial markets strongly suggesting investors give EA stock a hard pass.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4236081-avoid-ea-fun-end

The content you've linked on SeekingAlpha is from the crowd sourced blog section that pays per page view. The author of said article joined the site this year and it's their second article.

If EA are gona get hit by actual blows it's probably gona be next week following their Q3 Earnings Call where we'll get a much better idea of how Battlefield V really preformed.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say their stock price is going to fall.

This was mentioned in this thread a long while back.

Some of us predicted it.

Read it and see that EA are slowly destroying the franchise.

No actual sequel either.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-04-respawn-explains-apex-legends-surprise-release-and-why-there-are-no-titans

EoinHef

Fred The Red wrote: »

This was mentioned in this thread a long while back.

Some of us predicted it.

Read it and see that EA are slowly destroying the franchise.

No actual sequel either.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-04-respawn-explains-apex-legends-surprise-release-and-why-there-are-no-titans

Personally i wouldnt be too judgemental before even trying the game. So far you have predicted nothing really. Theres a brand new game out in the titanfall universe today,a series which you said EA were destroying.

Respawn also have the star wars game in production,could that not have delayed titanfall 3 as well?

The game is also F2P,there has to some sort of MT's to pay for it. The other games EA were doing that in were full priced titles.

I know some people have a major bone to pick with EA but as far as im concerned respawn have givin us two good games in Titanfall 1 and 2 so do they not deserve a chance with this game?

Grumpypants

Fred The Red wrote: »

This was mentioned in this thread a long while back.

Some of us predicted it.

Read it and see that EA are slowly destroying the franchise.

No actual sequel either.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-04-respawn-explains-apex-legends-surprise-release-and-why-there-are-no-titans

Man, you know it's really weird to spend so much time obsessing over a company whose biggest crime is they made video games that millions of people enjoy playing.

gizmo

Unsurprisingly, there's a whole bunch of stuff worth examining before apportioning blame here, should one even feel the need to at the moment.

Back in fall 2017, a Respawn source told Kotaku's Jason Schreier "Titanfall 3 was well into development" and would release by the end of 2018. The reason for the hurry was that the modified version of Valve's Source engine (used by the previous Titanfall games and reportedly also Apex Legends) - "was starting to feel dated", and "Titanfall 3 might not feel or look as good if it came out too much later" - which, clearly, it did not.

This expected release date quote from the article is actually pretty interesting. So, Titanfall 2 shipped at the end of October 2016. Factor in some down time after the project, the US festive periods and the fact that Respawn were both in the early stages of the Star Wars project and about to begin a hiring spree for it, I think it's safe to say that production of a potential Titanfall 3 probably didn't begin until the start of 2017. Releasing by the end of 2018 would have been pretty god damn tight, even with TF2 as a base, and it would have left zero room for any slippages. What's more, even if they had that full development period, it would also have put them right smack in the same release window Titanfall 2 fell into.

On that note, while most folk would probably agree that the decision to ship TF2 when it did was borderline suicidal, the decision for that doesn't appear to have been as straight-forward as originally thought. Here's Jason Schreier talking about the topic over the weekend. Between that and Vince Zampella's interview with Glixel from back then, there's an implication they had a choice in the matter. But, BF1 aside, why would he want to go up against Call of Duty? Well if you had followed even the highlights of his suit with Jason West suit against Activision, you'll probably have noticed that the only thing larger than their bank balance back then was their ego. Not only did he probably feel like they had the better product but were Activision to maintain their status quo when it came to post-release content, they also would have known they'd have them beaten on that front. This, of course, didn't work out.

Whatever the case, let's say they were aiming for around that date for Titanfall 3 and Anthem wasn't a deciding factor in the release date plans. That was going to take a massive effort from the entire team right from the get go. But there were problems - staff departures. In February 2017, Joel Emslie, the Art Director at Respawn left the company to return to Infinity Ward. The next month, Geoffrey Smith, the Lead Game Designer left again for Infinity Ward. Then in June 2017 Mark Grigsby, the Lead Animator left for...you guessed it, Infinity Ward. <Insert your desired supposition here> Whatever happened, that's a pretty crippling blow for any project in its earlier days, never mind one that's already on a pretty tight schedule. It's worth noting at this point that those departures happened before EA bought the company.

So, what happened after that? Well, from Schreier again, at the time of the acquisition in November 2017, it appears EA still had no desire to cancel the project as bonuses tied to Metacritic scores for the project were included in the deal. Things were happening outside of the company though. Less than two months prior, PUBG had reportedly sold 10m copies and Fortnite had been released which, within two weeks, already had a player base of 10m. The following month, PUBG had hit 3m concurrent players and by February 2018, they had sold 30m copies. At this point there's still no word from the already weakened team at Respawn but by March 2018, John Mundy, Senior Game Designer at the company had left for, well have a guess, and the following month Ranon Sarono, Senior Animator had left for...yea.

So there's all that...

Now, I don't really want to draw any conclusions from this but it kind of looks like the writing was on the wall for the project from soon after its inception.

Oh and in case that wall of text isn't enough, there's one last point to look at, the Source Engine. From the quote above, its modernity, or lack thereof, seems to have been one of the driving factors behind the release date chosen. How likely is that? Well, it's worth noting that as far back as the hiring they began for the Star Wars project in 2016, one of the prerequisites for the roles was experience in Unreal Engine 4.