EA messed up - the huge backlash about SW : BF2

kunst nugget

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I once made 50 euro from a knife skin :pac:

It's mental, but if you can get it...

How much had you spent to get that €50 return?

Captain Obvious

I've made €90 selling cosmetics on PUBG. It's a potato of a game but there's people paying hundreds for a simple jacket for some reason.

Sales down 60% when compared to first Battlefront by Dice / EA

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-20-star-wars-battlefront-2-physical-sales-down-60-per-cent-on-battlefront-1

Also CD Red Projekt fire major shots

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-19-cd-projekt-red-greed-cyberpunk-2077-multiplayer

Even Activation getting in on the lolz with Starcraft 2

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/15/starcraft-ii-is-now-free-to-play-takes-potshot-at-battlefront-ii-to-prove-it-7081753/

ShadowHearth

Got minecraft xbox + battlefront in smyths for ratties xmas present today. Then drove right to cex and handed in unwraped game for 45eu.
The girl at the counter was a bit confused, but even she knew about whole loot boxes.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sonics2k wrote: »

if people are silly enough to spend their money on them...

Some people can't manage money and may purchase cosmetic items in a game, other people may have buckets of cash and dropping 100 euro to make a character look better, is nothing to them.

Stone Deaf 4evr

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Got minecraft xbox + battlefront in smyths for ratties xmas present today. Then drove right to cex and handed in unwraped game for 45eu.
The girl at the counter was a bit confused, but even she knew about whole loot boxes.

did she make you break the seal before you traded it in? That always struck me as bananas, they turn a new game into a preowned game.

Venom

Ava Lazy Tannery wrote: »

Some people can't manage money and may purchase cosmetic items in a game, other people may have buckets of cash and dropping 100 euro to make a character look better, is nothing to them.

It's not quite that simple once a gambling element is introduced. I'v worked with people who suffered from addiction and could drop half their wages in a betting shop in less than an hour. That was with real money and not a credit card which can makes it worse, due to not feeling like your spending real money at the time which it something lots of people can get into trouble with.

super_furry

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Sales down 60% when compared to first Battlefront by Dice / EA

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-11-20-star-wars-battlefront-2-physical-sales-down-60-per-cent-on-battlefront-1

Think a big chunk of that can be attributed to the switch to digital - Destiny 2 sales physical sales were also down 60%.
But there's no doubt that the backlash will having an effect, I just think it'll be seen more in the longterm sales. The people who bought it day one were always going to do so, it's what happens now that will count and I think it'll tumble down the the charts.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-09-11-destiny-2-is-uks-biggest-launch-of-2017-but-falls-well-short-of-original

Penn

super_furry wrote: »

Think a big chunk of that can be attributed to the switch to digital - Destiny 2 sales physical sales were also down 60%.
But there's no doubt that the backlash will having an effect, I just think it'll be seen more in the longterm sales. The people who bought it day one were always going to do so, it's what happens now that will count and I think it'll tumble down the the charts.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-09-11-destiny-2-is-uks-biggest-launch-of-2017-but-falls-well-short-of-original

Yeah, and there were always going to be people who were going to get the game regardless, especially given that it's coming up to Xmas, there's a new Star Wars movie coming out (which likely means tie-in DLC) and liking the gameplay of the first one enough to not care about the lootboxes etc.

I think the biggest thing to take into account though will be the likely loss of money from the microtransactions, given that the launch of the game would likely be when more people would be inclined to buy them to get a headstart. By the time EA do bring in a replacement loot/MT system, many players might have already moved on from the game. A big chunk of potential revenue gone at that point.

wes

Venom wrote: »

It's not quite that simple once a gambling element is introduced. I'v worked with people who suffered from addiction and could drop half their wages in a betting shop in less than an hour. That was with real money and not a credit card which can makes it worse, due to not feeling like your spending real money at the time which it something lots of people can get into trouble with.

Micro transactions are also designed to be psychologically manipulative, targeting whales and dolphin specifically.

The rest of us end up with a hopelessly broken game, that is designed not to be fun, so as to get us to put down money, so we can get back to the fun bits.

J. Marston

super_furry

I'd be happy to see prices rise if it meant the end of paid season passes and loot-boxes. Charge me €80 for a game, but include everything in it and support it properly.

Venom

super_furry wrote: »

I'd be happy to see prices rise if it meant the end of paid season passes and loot-boxes. Charge me €80 for a game, but include everything in it and support it properly.

They pretty much have. How many different versions of a game come out now? Normal edition, collectors, digital deluxe? It's even gotten to a stage you need a spreadsheet to work out which Ubisoft game has certain bits of DLC.

gizmo

Venom wrote: »

They pretty much have. How many different versions of a game come out now? Normal edition, collectors, digital deluxe? It's even gotten to a stage you need a spreadsheet to work out which Ubisoft game has certain bits of DLC.

That's the same flawed argument Jim Sterling made in one of his previous videos on the subject though. I mean, when was the last time someone played one of the Assassins Creed, Far Cry or Watch_Dogs games, or even one of the more egregious examples of all of this, Shadow of War, and upon finishing it said to themselves "You know what that really needed? More content."?

Destiny is probably the most valid example of a game that was absolutely carved up during its development and while one can point to the rather chaotic process which led to its release in order to explain some of it, it still launched as a shell of a game. It is an exception, however, rather than the rule.

johnny_ultimate

I have to agree with gizmo there. I don't like games being carved up as a general principle... but most, bordering on all, of the 'special editions exclusives' I've seen have been superfluous crap at best. It's the sort of pointless filler "content" (*shudder*) that many games have too much of these days - the easiest bits to take away without affecting the game. There's exceptions, sure (Alien Isolation, for example, but even that stuff was a complete aside to the main game), but a crappy costume or mediocre subquest are typically not things I'm going to miss if they're locked behind a digital deluxe edition or some ****e like that. As long as the game itself doesn't rub it in. If a few people paying an extra tenner for worthless junk keeps the RRP lower for the rest of us... have at it.

There's a good few games I'd almost wish some of their dodgier filler had been taken out in the first place (*coughriseoffhetombraidercough*) :pac:

Gregk961

wes wrote: »

Micro transactions are also designed to be psychologically manipulative, targeting whales and dolphin specifically.

The rest of us end up with a hopelessly broken game, that is designed not to be fun, so as to get us to put down money, so we can get back to the fun bits.

I think you are buying into a certain youtube personalities narrative a bit too much there to be honest. Sterling has gone "all in" on this gambling comparison which really isnt that accurate. There are similarities alright but in reality you are comparing what can become a serious harmful habit to spending a bit of extra money on a video game. I respect the argument that it might make kids more inclined to gamble later in life(though that seems a reach aswell) but these kids have parents to control this in every sense.

Its in Jim Sterlings interest to whip people into a frenzy over things like this. It makes him money through increased viewers and gives him exposure.

I disagree with the practice by the way, people are overreaching here though by comparing games publishers to casinos.

Shiminay

Gregk961 wrote: »

Its in Jim Sterlings interest to whip people into a frenzy over things like this. It makes him money through increased viewers and gives him exposure.

None of his videos are monetised. At all. Only when outside sources try to claim copyright on his stuff does the algorithm put ads on the vids, so he puts several copyrighted things on and the automated system locks itself and no one can earn from it. Quite ingenious really, he's done videos explaining it.

Gregk961

Shiminay wrote: »

None of his videos are monetised. At all. Only when outside sources try to claim copyright on his stuff does the algorithm put ads on the vids, so he puts several copyrighted things on and the automated system locks itself and no one can earn from it. Quite ingenious really, he's done videos explaining it.

Fair enough I take that back then. I would still think his own interests are at heart here though, be it fame or fortune.

Shiminay

I think people who are unfamiliar with addiction and compulsion control mental health issues don't quite appreciate the nature of the illness (and it is an illness, not a social construct). I once heard a mental health professional say the addicted mind is incapable of self regulation and choice doesn't really come into it when the addict is faced with their particular vice. Children are far more receptive to the chemical impulses associated with the thrill of games of chance which is why it's of particular concern in the computer games space because lots and lots of children have lots and lots of games.

Gregk961 wrote: »

Fair enough I take that back then. I would still think his own interests are at heart here though, be it fame or fortune.

I concede of course that you're not necessarily wrong either, he has a career and a "brand" to think of too cause it's a volatile business to be in at the best of times. And just for disclosure, I give him a few quid a month on Patreon for both the Jimquisition and the Fistshark Marketing comedy podcast he does with one of his longtime collaborators Conrad Zimmerman, so I also concede a bias on the man's work

EoinHef

I dont think its right to say that loot boxes couldnt be as harmful to someone as traditional gambling.

I could easily see how vulnerable people could get caught up in them. In fact because they dont have the stigma attached like traditional gambling it may be easier to fall foul of them for some.

If we look at the financial numbers lootboxes are bringing in and then look at the playerbase numbers,there has to be a sizeable amount of people spending a lot of money on them to bring in the profits they are making.

gizmo

EoinHef wrote: »

If we look at the financial numbers lootboxes are bringing in and then look at the playerbase numbers,there has to be a sizeable amount of people spending a lot of money on them to bring in the profits they are making.

Quite possibly. While most focused on the drop in share price reported in the CNBC link over the weekend, one of the other comments made by the BoAML analyst kind of stuck out.

"We think the strength of Ultimate Team could offset a 2-3 million unit shortfall for Battlefront, and remain comfortable with our FY18 estimates."

So the year-on-year growth in Ultimate Team could be enough to make up for 2-3million in lost sales? That's more copies than most non-blockbuster titles sell in their lifetime.

In terms of numbers a little closer to home, there was an article posted on Eurogamer last Friday which looked at the reaction of some FUT players to the Battlefront II issue. It featured some snippets of a conversation with 50 year-old guy from the UK who told of how he had spent £320 on FIFA Points so far in just the latest instalment. Makes for some slightly sobering reading.

EoinHef

I can see why they grow year on year,when you buy the first game with them you might try stay clear of them. Second year you buy the game you buy one or two. Third year your now de sensitised and maybe buy a few every now and again. 4th year you might think im gonna buy them anyway so i might as well buy them day one and continue to buy them for the life of the game.

This sort of cycle would see profits grow year on year.

I saw that interview with the guy saying he spent that in a year,he also commented about how he must be EA's dream customer. I dont think he was wrong.

J. Marston

gizmo wrote: »

Quite possibly. While most focused on the drop in share price reported in the CNBC link over the weekend, one of the other comments made by the BoAML analyst kind of stuck out.



So the year-on-year growth in Ultimate Team could be enough to make up for 2-3million in lost sales? That's more copies than most non-blockbuster titles sell in their lifetime.

In terms of numbers a little closer to home, there was an article posted on Eurogamer last Friday which looked at the reaction of some FUT players to the Battlefront II issue. It featured some snippets of a conversation with 50 year-old guy from the UK who told of how he had spent £320 on FIFA Points so far in just the latest instalment. Makes for some slightly sobering reading.

£320 is nothing compared to some people...



That's from some guy on Reddit almost 2 months ago. There's receipts for over £2000 worth of Fifa points, in a week.

Angron

I wish I had that sort of money to piss away.

marcbrophy

J. Marston wrote: »

£320 is nothing compared to some people...

https://i.imgur.com/gidzKWyl.jpg

That's from some guy on Reddit almost 2 months ago. There's receipts for over £2000 worth of Fifa points, in a week.

That has to be someone doing it for the youtube views though!
Would anyone get any enjoyment out of spending that kinda money on packs otherwise? :eek:

Billy86

marcbrophy wrote: »

That has to be someone doing it for the youtube views though!
Would anyone get any enjoyment out of spending that kinda money on packs otherwise? :eek:

Probably the same reason some people spend upwards of €200 a week on smokes.

wes

Gregk961 wrote: »

I think you are buying into a certain youtube personalities narrative a bit too much there to be honest. Sterling has gone "all in" on this gambling comparison which really isnt that accurate. There are similarities alright but in reality you are comparing what can become a serious harmful habit to spending a bit of extra money on a video game. I respect the argument that it might make kids more inclined to gamble later in life(though that seems a reach aswell) but these kids have parents to control this in every sense.

Not just referring to Sterling, and its not just a bit of extra money:

Interview with the video game whale

--SNIP--
How much have you spent on microtransactions and loot boxes?

Pietz: I've probably spent easily upwards of $20,000 in the past five years.
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
Are loot boxes a form of gambling?

Pietz: Absolutely! It is gambling and the same feeling you get when you pull the jackpot on a slot machine is the same feeling these companies are aiming for whether you win or lose.

When you lose they want you to feel down, they want you to feel like you lost and it's terrible. They want to get you down in the dredges because when you win they want you to feel ecstatic. Every single detail is meticulously made to make you feel amazing. That's why if you have some amazing item just kind of poof and a little sparkle of glitter, you're not even going to know if what you got was good. You're not going to be excited about it and you might junk it, then later you might feel like trash. They don't do that. They make it this whole ordeal of whoosh, here's a super cool item. They want to make you feel good and that ties in so directly to our brain and our dopamine receptors to where we feel good when we get that. It becomes a drug.
--SNIP--

Seems even some of the whales think its gambling.

The design is pretty clearly psychologically manipulative. They have people whose entire jobs are to get you pay money for micro transactions.

marcbrophy

Billy86 wrote: »

Probably the same reason some people spend upwards of €200 a week on smokes.

You mean, they are both feeding an addiction!
Is that the correlation you are trying to put across?

At least the smoker is getting their reward!
The guy spending large of Fifa packs, is probably still looking for the Lionel Messi card

kunst nugget

marcbrophy wrote: »

At least the smoker is getting their reward!

Lung cancer?