KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Unless you’ve been isolated on Dagobah, you’ll have no doubt heard about the controversy surrounding Star Wars Battlefront II and its microtransaction system. According to one Wall Street firm, however, this outrage is unwarranted given that it’s still “one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.”
Outcry from fans over Star Wars Battlefront II’s decisively pay-to-win loot crates resulted in many tweaks, as well as a suspension of the microtransaction system entirely, resulting in no real-world money able to be invested in the game. KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Evan Wingren has since expressed his concerns that this will hurt the video game’s sales, to which has already seen poor launch figures.
“We view the negative reaction to Star Wars BattlefrontII (and industry trading sympathy) as an opportunity to add to Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Activision Blizzard positions. The handling of the SWBF2 launch by EA has been poor; despite this, we view the suspension of MTX [micro-transactions] in the near term as a transitory risk.”
“Gamers aren't overcharged, they're undercharged (and we're gamers). … This saga has been a perfect storm for overreaction as it involves EA, Star Wars, reddit, and certain purist gaming journalists/outlets who dislike MTX,” Wingren wrote.
This conclusion of being undercharged was reached with the following mathematics: If a general Battlefront II player were to spend $60 on the game, plus a further $20-per-month on the title’s microtransactions, all while playing approximately 2.5 hours a day, every day for a year, then it equates to just 40 cents per hour, while comparative media is undeniably higher at roughly 60 cents-per-hour for television and 80 for movie rentals.
“If you take a step back and look at the data, an hour of video game content is still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment,” he wrote. “Quantitative analysis shows that video game publishers are actually charging gamers at a relatively inexpensive rate, and should probably raise prices.”
His suggested pricing reaches as high as $144 for a single microtransaction-less title, with costs varying depending on the company.
Meanwhile, Lucasfilm supports the decision to remove microtransactions, stating to The Washington Post that “Star Wars has always been about the fans, and whether it's Battlefront or any other Star Wars experience, they come first.”
KitGuru Says: Many people I’ve spoken to have stated that they would actually be happier to pay a little more for complete titles that aren’t reliant on an exploitative system, however how high varies per person. It’s clear that this evaluation only takes into account the value of content consumed rather than the quality of such content, which ultimately gets watered down and changed to suit a system that is about cash rather than the players themselves. Do you think we should pay more for games?
Absolute dribble, if they want to make some god damn money how about dedicated server rental, cosmetic skins and future DLC’s with Map packs. You can bleed my wallet slowly over the year, if the game is good I will 100% buy your DLC and maybe even some cosmetics. Everybody already hates EA with their army of psychologist game developers who want nothing more than to exploit your addictive personal traits.
It won’t be long until there are laws and regulations against MTX in games because it’s essentially legalised gambling which targets both adults and children and preys on addictive personalities (or stealing your parents credit cards). Games developers won’t get away with this for long and hopefully when laws do come in, studios can focus on making a good game with good quality content, instead of how to rinse people clean.
The biggest piece of this problem is the fact that EA countlessly releases unfinished games, and needs revenue streams in order to continue development of the unfinished game. How about this: Finish the game first (like the good old days), release it for 40% more (80-100e) then see how different the reaction is.
When I play games now I feel like im eating in a fucking tapas restaurant, where you have to cough up the money after every tiny plate. IM HUNGRY JUST GIVE ME THE WHOLE DAMN MEAL (covered in gravy).
You can only charge what a buyer is willing to pay in the market. I am not willnig to play 140$ a game, so that is a very dumb suggestion to give to a company.
You have to remember that when we’re considering a takeaway or a movie, we’re talking about paying 10£ per person or less up front. That is not a big percent of a wage, even if you’re on minimum wage. So yes, for a movie, that’s about 4-5£ an hour, however, in this case it’s more about the big screen, the popcorn and the experience that you share with your loved one.
Now get closer to 100£ and that’s a significantly higher portion of your wage. It’s a transaction you really have to think about. What if you don’t like it? What if you won’t play it for hundreds of hours?
It’s not just about price per hour, but more about what is a reasonable amount of money for a person to throwaway at a hobby in one go.
I just like this guys suggestion that a title like this has a shelf life above 2-3 months for the majority of gaming population anyway.
Such BS comparison, 60 cents per hour for tv and 80 cents per hour for movie rental? I think you’re getting screwed over on pricing there buddy. Ever heard of Netflix? I can watch 2.5h per day (his numbers) every day for a month, totalling 75h at $11. thats less than 15 cents per hour. And if we start taking the required hardware into account, computer gaming, or even console gaming, becomes a lot more expensive than watching telly or getting a netflix/amazon/…. subscription.
Every game that EA touched, it gone bad. Like Mass Effect Andromeda, the latest NFS game.
Fuck DLC map packs. They always destroy online communities. I have no friends that ever bought a DLC map pack. Go Overwatch way, sell cosmetics in lootboxes and found your future MP maps content. There are games that make LOTS of money out of 60$ price tag.
This guy is simple just a retard. Let’s look at Europe where there are lots of countries with a medium wage of near 500-600 euros per MONTH. Who will pay 100 or more euros for a fucking game? No one with a brain.
There are games out there who make lots of money with a 60$/euro price tag. They just need to make a fucking good game, not a cut ass in half and low content.
Also if companies want microtransactions, why don’t they follow Overwatch style? There are only cosmetic items in the lootboxes and they found the future content to not be paid map packs or dlc. Stop being greedy cunts and make good games, instead of trying to screw with the customer. Simple as that.
And yea maybe the prices for the games didn’t go up from a long time, but there are also A LOT more gamers that they were before. Stop suggesting this fucking bullshit. If the price will go up, the piracy will rise even more, or less and less people will buy.
What a jackass of an analyst.
He’s looking at cost to the consumer per hour, rather than cost to make the product and profit margin. If publishers want to charge more, than they need to invest more into their product and show some actual damn innovation rather than the same crap but now with loot boxes and paywalls!
But then this is why these moron analysts have driven EAs share price through the roof even when it has slowly been killing off major franchises due to extreme incompetence!
The guy is an idiot as he didn’t look at market competition. You can pick up the Witcher 3 and all DLC for ~$25. That means EA is staggeringly uncompetitive in it’s own market.
Take the games from the bean counters and give them back to the gamers.
Corporate bs have destroyed everything they touched in gaming.
Also they are idiots, if you are smart and look to maximize profit you don’t do it by screwing the customer. Otherwise sooner or later the customer will left.
The backlash hasn’t been against microtransactions in general. It has been against buying advantages in a multiplayer environment. Imagine a chess game where one player could buy an extra queen. Comparing that to a movie is silly.
Thats more of a bullshitartist than an analyst. There are more holes in this than in an cartoon swiss cheese.
Don’t you remember the days of Halo 3? That was one the of the best gaming experiences in my life, after a few months when you start to get bored and fed up of the same old maps a new map pack would arrive and you would have another 3 months of fun with new maps and it only costs 20e, quite affordable and you know what you’re getting, not some RNG icon or sticker.
Please can explain how “Map packs destroy online communities?”
Even the Overwatch model is far from perfect, League of Legends in my opinion has a much better business model. The game is completely free because it incorporates MTX and it works, that’s why it’s the highest grossing game in the world.
The last thing anybody serious gamers wants, is to buy a 60e game only to load it up and then get harassed to spend 5$ on a RNG loot box, this is seriously the definition of gambling, RNG rewards… you should try playing roulette it’s the same concept.
It actually worries me how unaware players are of the psychological effects of loot boxes, where players are being incentivised to participate in gambling style activities through the provision of prizes of money or money’s worth in game items.
You are supposed to play fucking games, not buy loot boxes and open them.
I like your chess analogy Marius, I’m also worried about the psychological affects it has on players who are incentivized to participate in gambling style activities through the provision of prizes of money or money’s worth of in game items.
Games are turning into casino’s, nearly all games now have these stupid loot boxes.
I don’t agree with the article, but I would happily pay 100 euro for a game that’s good quality without DLC and micro-transactions. Let’s assume you get 150 hours gameplay at a cost of 100e. That’s 0.6cent an hour, which is still cheaper than any other form of entertainment.
I don’t know what country you are from in Europe, but that certainly is not a medium wage. A full time minimum wage is around 1000e a month (legally).
Even with your logic I would disagree with you, if you can’t afford something then tough luck. Does apple need to sell their products cheaper to accommodate for poorer people in 3rd world regions? Hell no, that’s just not commercially viable, you point is completely invalid.
Here’s a whitepaper about gambling and micro-transactions: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/PDF/Virtual-currencies-eSports-and-social-casino-gaming.pdf
You need to understand that games are becoming more and more complex to design, develop and market on international scale. Consumers have higher expectations, the DevOps cycle is becoming increasingly complex and on-going support is required so their has to be some sustainable revenue stream in order to support the lifespan on the game.
The price of games going up is better than games becoming tapping into gambling concepts, you’ll actually save money on the games that you like. Also Loot boxes encourage addictive personality traits and believe me studios and developers are already hiring psychologists to exploit people.
A glorified bean-counter with diarrhea of the mouth. I do agree with his opinion that they should raise prices though. I’d like to see how deep EA wants to dig a grave for themselves.
That guy can snack on a whole bag of dicks.
Well said indeed
I totally understand that you are willing to pay a higher price for a gamers, but you don’t need to be an elitest attitude and saying “if you can’t afford something then tough luck”
Just because your fortunate doesn’t mean every one in the world is you know.
Retard. Yip. A retard that doesn’t play games.
Mind u he probably can afford 144.
“full time minimum wage is around 1000e a month (legally)”
Make that 500e legally in lots of countries.
I did just check and yes you are correct, but might I also point out that wage is usually relative to the country GDP and costs of living in that given place.
I’m currently working in Spain, I work with several Romanians, Lithuanians and Polish people who said that the pay isn’t much different that in Spain although the minimum is much lower.
It’s not an “elitest attitude” it’s reality. Like I said if you can’t afford something tough luck. I’m literally broke every month and live in a 20 square meters studio…. I’m not fortunate or privileged in slightest. I just checked my bank account its on 6e lol.
Yes but you also understand how Netflix have to raise their pricing in order to deliver higher-quality content at the same service level as before right?
I think it’s happening with games, consumers have higher expectations of games but are not willing to pay more than 60$ outright, so instead they tap in to other monetization models such as MTX. Perhaps it would be better if we just paid more upfront.
The problem is that from an outsider it’s hard to determine what a fair price is. Gamers used to cost 55-60 euro/dollar in the SNES era as well, so if you look at inflation and the development costs that have increased exponentially, current prices are absurd. But there are also lots more consumers.
Having said that, a AAA game at 60 euro/dollar needs to sell at least a few million to be financially viable. Increasing the price risks selling fewer copies of course. Gamers, as media consumers in general, feel entitled to high quality content for a low price; 10 pounds should cover all TV/movies, another 10 for all music, and that is simply not a sustainable business model.
There is a massive disconnect between what services cost and what consumers are willing to pay. Either some major labels need to go bankrupt, limiting the competition and increasing the chances that a game will sell well enough, or the quality needs to go down in order to make the expenses realistic.
If I pay for a month of netflix and watch 2.5 hours a day it comes in way less than what they say for this 1 game! Utter tripe.
I remember the days before ‘Halo 3’ and map packs that cost money. I remember when PC games were half the price of console games. I remember when dedicated servers were the only option, and anyone could host one. Back when we were free to use the map tools to make our own maps, our own server side mods. Full conversion mods that were free. We could change the skins of weapons on our guns and not get busted instead of the current cs:go model. Back when they gave away a new map or two when they released a patch to fix things. Back before you could pay more to get it a day or two earlier with weapons other people have to play for 500 hours to get. Nowadays, people think it’s acceptable for modders to charge for basic stuff. It goes completely against what a modding community should be. It should be open and inclusive, help people learn how to make a game. In return you give something back to the community for them to play. Everyone likes to look back at gaming when they were younger with rose tinted glasses. In my opinion, if someone wants to charge £50 for a game, they shouldn’t have micro transactions. Make it free to play if that’s the case. Just means the big boys at EA can only have 2 new Bentleys this year.
Given the up take of the game, that might not be far off the mark.
The mere fact this idiot is using other media’s pricing for another completely other type of media shows that he hasn’t got a clue how these things are made and sold. This is a hilariously funny article for anyone who actually works in the industry.
If a game were to sell at 144 dollars……. Almost no one would buy it and if we add microtransactions some people will still not buy it………… But games like the witcher 3 have almost no dlc and no microtransactions and that makes it is one of the best games…….. So the best way to sell a game is to make it sell for 60 dollars and make it fun so more people will buy it thus more profits I don’t care what the analysts say they just want to milk our wallets…….
I think the lack of microtransactions and dlc isn’t what makes TW3 one of the best games, it’s being a damned good game that was released with a decent amount of polish (it wasn’t perfect, still some bugs but a game that big you can’t catch everything), and all content “intact” makes it one of the best.
Fact is CDPR kept any extra fees for DLC that simply added to the experience, rather than completing it and were communicating with fans, releasing patches and even throwing in free extra content at times.
“roughly 60 cents-per-hour for television and 80 for movie rentals.”
Hence why many people have cut the cord and subscribe to Netflix.
The analyst is trying to put a positive spin on a negative story.