Yeah, that truly would be nice. But one doesn’t necessarily rule out the other. Then again, the definition of greed changes from person to person. And I understand that you believe that while development costs have gone up, gamers tend to be entitled for no reason. That is true, costs have indeed gone up. But at the same time, again, I must address the fact that there are companies with way less dough in the resource department that manage to do this whole ‘games as a service’ way better than EA. This is the main reason why this seems such a greedy statement to me. If someone can explain to me how can someone like Psyonix, Ubisoft Montreal or Digital Extremes, do what EA tries to do, so easily, I am all ears !
If something bothers me, I will bring it up in a discussion because it bothers me. Since the analyst seems out of touch and believes I am being undercharged for AAA games, I brought the comparison up for context for me and why this statement bothered me. And if said analyst wants to compare video games to going to the movies as a service, two forms of media that are not comparable neither cost wise or development wise, I feel I am within my rights to use a thin argument as well. If I believe that 300 dollars a year for the same game is too much for the average gamer, you are free to prove me wrong.
I also wanna point out that if what you are saying:
implies that there is a choice between either speeding up the process with more money or grinding the hell out of a game over a time period that has been calculated to be ridiculous, then said choice is not a choice. If that is not the point of the statement, I misunderstood.
For me, even a hypothetical statement like spending 300 dollars a year for a single game sometimes is enough to fire me up so I apologize if my tone is too much.
I stand by my point, though. I may not be an analyst but I know money and what this guy’s hypothesis is suggesting is too much.