When a financial analyst supports that I should be getting charged 300 dollars a year in order to fully enjoy a game (during the time when continuous support for other games has been done with much less intrusive and obstructive methods) and that I am being undercharged when not buying into it, then yeah, he is on said company’s payroll, has no idea how the market moves forward and ergo, involved with the development and marketing of the game.
For my money, at least.
300 dollars in a single year for a single piece of media is not cheap for me. And it is not cheap IN GENERAL for ANY form of media. 300 dollars or euros is substantial for someone like me (for example, 300 euros is what I pay my analyst to do my taxes) so him saying it’s no big deal really ruffles my feathers.
If EA want to spent exorbitant sums on making a single game, that’s their problem.
Oh come on. If you have a cable subscription then it’s probably in the same ballpark yearly. It’s fine to say you can’t afford it, but that is your personal value choices, not reflective on the value of the media objectively of itself.
I don’t but I have a subscription to a service that allows me to enter prescriptions in my store and it’s around the same cost. THAT is vital. That is how much a subscription for a VITAL service should cost. Entertainment does not enter that ballpark.
They cost the same. Seems a pretty good reason for a comparison but that’s me. And I wouldn’t be complaining if other companies, with way less resources than EA, did what EA tries to do but in a respectable manner.
Yes, and wouldn’t it be nice if gamers could go “you know what, my priorities in life differ so I’ll just give this game a miss, No hard feelings” instead of screaming “that company is greedy! It should be cheaper! I want this game and I will help destroy it if you don’t give it to me for my personal value assessment and not your business value assessment!”
As for comparison, comparing just because they are the same cost is only relevant to you, not to anything else. No one can fault, nor should care, if you think something is unaffordable to yourself because of something else you need to pay for. That’s a personal matter. Don’t bring it in to discussions about real comparisons with other similar goods in similar sectors.
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.
Watch when video game companies take out microtransactions and paid DLC and all the lil’ backseat developers scream “Yay, we beat the corrupt gaming agenda!” and then every full price AAA game shoots up to $90-$100 instead of $60 lmao.
“Despite its inconvenience to the popular press narrative, if you like Star Wars and play video games at an average rate, you’re far better off skipping the movie and playing the game to get the most bang for your buck,” Wingren added."
He’s specifically, all through the article, just talking about cost and value for money. That’s all the article talks about. His whole point, while crude and not 100% relevant to the topic as some on the subject of Battlefront see it, is that people complaining that Battlefront is a cash grab and milking people of money are forgetting that even if they only do what the business expects them to do on average, they’re still getting a better price-per-hour for their money than other entertainment options they could spend the money on.
The problem, which his article is in no way going to help because those who most need to learn it will just ignore it and say that the guy is an EA shill, is gamers genuinely seem to not get the paradox that comes with expecting a live ongoing services which means prompt fixes and maintenance to online services, ongoing creation of content, new experiences and challenges to keep having a “reason to play”, and yet also expecting the value of the service to cost less than that of other entertainment where the creators have little to no obligation to be as hands on with what they give you after the point of delivery, if there is even any reason to interact with you at all.
We get a damn good deal from computer gaming, that’s ultimately all he’s trying to say, and he’s 100% correct about that.
There are things I am fine with, and things I am not fine with.
That the development of games increase more and more, is in my opinion understandable and needs to be negated in one way or another.
Rather, the fact that they decided to take a loot box model with P2W elements, is a tad bit too close to Gambling than it should be.
For the record, extra payable DLC of characters, maps, skins, new storylines, etc… is A-OK.
Selling loot boxes where the items that you get, is never a guarantee of what you want AND can drive the less mentally strong into a gambling addiction --> an absolute No-No.
Despite the fact that you are trying your best to make this sound ethically correct, I find it very hard to see the justification.
Loot boxes should not be a thing incorporated into games. It should never have been a part of the gaming world. It wasn’t there 10 years again with other AAA games, so why should it now?
Looking back on the article, the Journalist said that the gamers are overreacting because the cost of gaming has gone up.
If anything, we all understand that the development of a game can sometimes even be considered a huge risk, and needs appropriate funding and return-investment.
That said, this article just appears to me as a justification of EA’s loot box model - by claiming that something needs to help offset the cost, therefore gamers should not be outraged about it. In fact, they should be ‘glad’.
Taking my points from above, I think the analyst fails to grab the other reasons why gamers are angry while also failing to point out other successful methods instead of loot boxes.